CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

4.1 LAND USE, WIND AND SHADOW 4-1 

CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

This chapter presents information on the environmental setting in the project area, organized by 

environmental issue category. The project study area encompasses the geographic area 

potentially most affected by the project. For most issues involving physical effects, this is the 

project footprint, or the area that would be disturbed for or replaced by new project facilities. 

This area includes the proposed downtown extension alignment from the existing Caltrain 

terminal and storage yard at Fourth and Townsend Streets to the Transbay Terminal, and it also 

includes the proposed redevelopment area surrounding the Transbay Terminal. Socioeconomic 

effects may be felt over a larger area. 

4.1 LAND USE, WIND AND SHADOW 

The land use study area, as shown on Figure 4.1-1, includes areas near the Caltrain Downtown 

Extension Alternative routes as well as the proposed Transbay Redevelopment Area. The study 

area is bounded by Third, Fourth and Seventh Streets to the west, China Basin to the south, The 

Embarcadero and Steuart and Spear Streets to the east, and Howard and Market Streets to the 

north. Boundaries of the proposed Transbay Redevelopment Area (shown on Figure 4.1-1) 

encompass the Transbay Terminal and its immediate environs, except for some areas 

immediately south of the Transbay Terminal. 

4.1.1 EXISTING LAND USES IN THE PROJECT AREA

The proposed project area contains a mix of light industrial, warehousing/distribution, 

commercial office, retail, live-work, and residential uses and surface parking lots. Since the 

1930s, the area has been dominated by regional transportation facilities associated with the Bay 

Bridge, including the Bridge structure and approaches, the Terminal Separator Structure (Bay 

Bridge ramps), the Transbay Terminal and ramp structures that connect to the Bridge, and the 

Embarcadero Freeway. Due to the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake and subsequent demolition of 

the Terminal Separator Structure and Embarcadero Freeway, there are now a number of remnant 

and/or irregularly-shaped parcels interspersed throughout the area, most of which are used for 

surface parking. These parcels are the focus of proposed rezoning from P (Public) to C-3-O 

(Downtown Office), or to C-3-O (SD) – Downtown Office Special Development and potential 

development sites. 

Office use was the predominant land use within the proposed Transbay Redevelopment Area in 

1997, occupying about 89 percent of the developed square footage, much of it in high-rise 

buildings. Industrial uses occupied about four percent of the floor area, with hotel, institutional, 

retail, and residential uses occupying just under two percent each. Development since 1997 has 
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

4-2 4.1 LAND USE, WIND AND SHADOW

Figure 4.1-1A: Existing Land Uses 
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

4.1 LAND USE, WIND AND SHADOW 4-3 

Figure 4.1-1B 1: Existing Land Uses 
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

4-4 4.1 LAND USE, WIND AND SHADOW

consisted primarily of high-rise office towers, with some high-rise residential development. The 

area contains limited publicly accessible open space. Since there are no public parks in the area, 

the existing open space generally consists of building setbacks and areas between office towers. 

Major educational uses include Golden Gate University and the Academy of Art College, both 

located north and west of the Transbay Terminal. Remaining industrial sites and service uses, 

such as auto repair shops, are clustered within and near the Transbay Terminal ramps and along 

First and Fremont Streets south of Folsom Street. Surface parking lots are located along the 

north side of Folsom Street, beneath the terminal ramps, and at various other locations scattered 

throughout the area. 

4.1.2 AREA PLANS AND ZONING

Existing plans and policies that affect not only the proposed project area, but also the larger land 

use study area, include the San Francisco General Plan and its elements, as well as area plans 

contained within the General Plan. The pertinent area plans include the Downtown Plan, the 

South of Market Plan, and the Rincon Hill Plan. Other area plans, such as the Northeastern 

Waterfront Plan, and San Francisco Redevelopment Agency Plans (including the Rincon PointSouth Beach Redevelopment Plan, Yerba Buena Center Redevelopment Plan, and Mission Bay 

North Plan), guide land use in areas contained within the study area. A detailed listing of 

applicable plans and policies is included in the Technical Memorandum, Consistency with 

Existing Plans and Policies (ESA, 2001). Existing zoning is varied and reflects the multitude of 

different land uses found in the study area. Zoning districts in the area are described in 

Section 4.1.3 and shown on Figure 4.1-2. 

4.1.3 NEIGHBORHOODS WITHIN AND ADJACENT TO THE STUDY AREA

This section provides a discussion of existing land uses, applicable plans and zoning regulations, 

and proposed development in each neighborhood within or adjacent to the study area. 

Figure 4.1-3 identifies neighborhood boundaries (land use subareas). 

Height and bulk of new development is regulated by height and bulk districts established by the 

City of San Francisco in order to relate “the height of buildings to important attributes of the City 

pattern and to the height and character of existing development,” and to relate the bulk of 

buildings to “the prevailing scale of development to avoid an overwhelming or dominating 

appearance in new construction.” (Planning Code Section 251). Height and bulk restrictions are 

of particular concern in the proposed Transbay Redevelopment Area and are discussed in 

Section 4.1.3.2, Transbay Terminal Environs. Figure 4.1-4 shows existing height and bulk 

districts in the area. 
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

4.1 LAND USE, WIND AND SHADOW 4-5 

Figure 4.1-2: Existing Zoning 
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

4-6 4.1 LAND USE, WIND AND SHADOW

Figure 4.1-3: Land Use Subareas 
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

4.1 LAND USE, WIND AND SHADOW 4-7 

Figure 4.1-4: Existing Height and Bulk Districts 
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

4-8 4.1 LAND USE, WIND AND SHADOW

4.1.3.1 Financial District 

The Financial District, historically located north of Market Street, is composed of high-rise 

office buildings, most with ground floor retail. As described in the Downtown Plan (an Area 

Plan contained within the General Plan), the Financial District spills across Market Street south 

as far as Folsom Street. Along Spear and Main Streets, high-rise office buildings extend south 

nearly to Folsom Street. Thus, all of the project development north of Folsom Street would fall 

within the Downtown Plan’s Financial District. 

Between Market and Howard Streets, the Second Street corridor is characterized by historic 

office buildings of 100 feet or less in height with ground floor retail. These structures make up 

the New Montgomery/Second Street Conservation District of the Downtown Plan. Most of these 

are unreinforced masonry structures, several of which have been seismically upgraded, and are 

noted for architectural merit. Some older industrial buildings between Market and Folsom 

Streets have been converted to retail, office and residential uses. Warehouse buildings are being 

used for office buildings, factory outlets, live-work spaces, and media studios. Residential uses 

are located in converted commercial buildings and above the ground floor of commercial uses. 

Recent development projects include new office buildings at 101 Second Street (at Mission 

Street), 199 Fremont Street (at Howard Street), One Second Street, and 631 Folsom Street. 

Another office building, the Gap headquarters, has been constructed immediately adjacent to the 

study area, at Folsom and Spear Streets. Recently completed residential (including live-work) 

projects include 370 Beale Street and a residential tower on Natoma Street near Second Street. 

The Second Street corridor can be divided into two smaller subareas: contemporary offices and 

historic structures. The first subarea has several office buildings that were constructed in the 

1970s and 1980s. These buildings, located between Folsom and Bryant Streets, have ground 

floor retail space and are typically 200 feet, or less, in height. Recently constructed buildings in 

the Second Street corridor include a 143-foot-tall office tower at 201 Second Street, the 180-foot 

Marriott Courtyard Hotel at 299 Second Street, the CNET building at 261 Second Street, and a 

residential mid-rise at 246 Second Street between Tehama and Clementina Streets. The second 

subarea, the New Montgomery-Second Street Conservation District, is described in 

Section 4.16.6.4. 

A large portion of the Financial District is zoned C-3-O (Downtown Office), including the 

blocks south of Market Street, roughly to Minna Street. The C-3-O district is characterized by 

the intensity and compactness of its development, which permits face-to-face business contacts 

and offers the convenience of traveling by foot. Just south of this area is the C-3-O (SD) zoning 

district – Downtown Office Special Development – which is an area created to direct unused 

development potential, such as the transfer of development rights, near the downtown core. The 

C-S-3 District, which is located west of the study area near Third Street, accommodates 

functions such as wholesaling, printing, business services, and parking. This district has for the 

most part been underdeveloped. 
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

4.1 LAND USE, WIND AND SHADOW 4-9 

Recently approved development in the Financial District includes the following: 

• An office development at 524 Howard Street, approved in early 1999; 

• The Foundry Square project, an office development consisting of four separate office 

structures at the intersection of First and Howard Streets, currently under construction; 

• An addition of 60,000 square feet of office space to an existing office building at One Market 

Street; 

• A 700,000 square foot office development at 554 Mission Street; 

• A 24-story, 253,000-square foot office development with ground-floor retail at 535 Mission 

Street; 

• Demolition of existing four-story warehouse building and construction of a seven-story 

office building at 235 Second Street; 

• A 40,000-square foot office building at 272 Main Street; 

• A 579,034-square foot office building at 555-569 Mission Street; 

• Vertical addition of mezzanine and fourth story to an existing three-story building providing 

office and light industrial uses at 38-44 Tehama Street; 

• A seven-story building to house mechanical, electrical, and data equipment at 57 Jessie 

Street; 

• A 20-story, 200-foot tall mixed-use (commercial and residential) building at 48 Tehama 

Street; 

• A 10-story, 45,800 square foot office building with ground-floor retail on the site of an 

existing surface parking lot at 201 Second Street; 

• Construction of a seven-story, 95-foot tall office building with 24,435 square feet of office 

use at 69 Clementina Street; 

• A two-story vertical addition to an existing three-story office building at 55 Natoma Street; 

• A 10-story office building with ground-floor retail at 35 Hawthorne Street; 

• 33 new live work or condominium units at 530-534 Folsom Street; 

• 24 residential and eight live/work units on a vacant lot currently used for parking at 19 

Clementina Street; 

• 185 residential units in a 16-story-over-basement, 150-foot tall building on a lot currently 

used for surface parking at 199 New Montgomery Street; 

• An eight-level, primarily short-term parking garage with 425 spaces at the San Francisco 

Museum of Modern Art; 

• Three-story vertical addition to an existing nine-story parking garage at 51 Third Street; 

• A 200-room hotel with ground-floor retail space at Mission and Steuart Streets; 

• Improvements to the Embarcadero Music Concourse. 

• A 605-foot high-rise on the south side of Mission Street between Fremont and Beale Streets. 

301 Mission Street was approved for development by the San Francisco Planning 

Commission on July 31, 2003. As approved, the 301 Mission Street project has been 

modified to be more compatible with the Second-to-Main alignment, which was selected as 

the Caltrain Extension Component of the Locally Preferred Alternative in March 2003. 
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

4-10 4.1 LAND USE, WIND AND SHADOW

4.1.3.2 Transbay Terminal Environs 

The existing Transbay Terminal is located in the Financial District and is bounded by Mission 

Street to the north, First Street (and slightly beyond toward Second Street) to the west, Natoma 

Street to the south, and Fremont Street to the east, with bus ramps that form an elevated loop 

connecting to the Bay Bridge to the south. The Transbay Terminal site is zoned for Public Use. 

The blocks encircled by the existing terminal and ramps currently are less intensely developed 

than other portions of the study area north of Clementina Street; however, recent project 

approvals by the Planning Commission would change the area. Industrial and service uses are 

generally located in one- to six-story buildings that front the alleys of Natoma, Tehama and 

Clementina Streets. Some of these buildings have been converted to office and some to 

residential use. Although buildings in the Terminal environs are typically less than six stories, 

the area includes four high-rise office buildings located at 100 First Street, 201 Mission Street, 

301 Howard Street, and 199 Fremont Street. The latter two are the only high-rises inside the 

Terminal loop ramps, while others have been approved at 524 Howard Street, 545 Mission 

Street, 555 Mission Street, 575 Mission Street, and Foundry Square at First and Howard Streets. 

The 605-foot high-rise on the south side of Mission Street between Fremont and Beale Streets 

has been approved for development by the San Francisco Planning Commission. This area also 

has a noticeable amount of vacant land. Between Howard and Folsom Streets, there are a 

number of surface parking lots on remnant and/or irregularly shaped parcels that became vacant 

after the 1989 earthquake and subsequent demolition of the Terminal Separator Structure. 

The proposed Transbay Redevelopment Area contains various height and bulk districts. The 

lowest building heights are established by the 30-X district located at the corner of First and 

Mission Streets; the tallest building heights have been established in a 400-S district on 

Assessor’s Block 3718. The tallest buildings in the Transbay Terminal environs are in a 550-S 

district between First and Second Streets on Mission Street, which is outside the proposed 

Transbay Redevelopment Area. Figure 4.1-4 and Table 4.1-1 identify the existing zoning and 

height and bulk districts for the proposed Transbay Redevelopment Area. 

4.1.3.3 Rincon Hill 

Rincon Hill, bounded by Essex and Folsom Streets, The Embarcadero, the Bay Bridge, and 

portions of Bryant Street, contains 55 acres of land, subdivided into over 70 parcels. Rincon Hill 

borders the proposed Transbay Redevelopment Area on the south along Folsom Street. 

Buildings in the area are typically less than four stories high. Rincon Hill was San Francisco’s 

first well-to-do residential neighborhood, but it has been a warehouse and distribution area since 

the latter third of the 19th Century. Industrial and commercial buildings dominate the area, 

although there are also residential uses. Vacant or underutilized parcels are interspersed 

throughout Rincon Hill. Within the last decade, encouraged by the Rincon Hill Plan, there has 

been an increase in the construction of residential space. New residential projects have been 

constructed at 388 Beale Street (Avalon Towers), 403 Main (Portside Condominiums) and livework projects along Folsom Street and First Street and Guy Place. 
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

4.1 LAND USE, WIND AND SHADOW 4-11 

The San Francisco Planning Code established a special use district for Rincon Hill to protect the 

existing environment and to further the goals and policies contained in the Rincon Hill Plan. The 

intent is to convert an outmoded industrial area to a unique mixed-use neighborhood close to 

downtown. 

Table 4.1-1: Existing Zoning in the Proposed Transbay Redevelopment Area 

Assessor’s 

Block Block Bounded by Zoning Districts Height/Bulk 

Districts 

3718 Mission, Main, Howard, and Beale Streets P, C-3-0, 

C-3-0 (SD) 80-X, 80X / 400S 

3720 Mission, Fremont, Howard, and First Streets P 30-X / 80-X 

3736 Howard, First, Folsom, and Second Streets P 80-X / 200-S 

3737 Howard, Fremont, Folsom, and First Streets P, C-3-0 (SD) 80-X 

3738 Howard, Beale, Folsom, and Fremont Streets P 80-X 

3739 Howard, Main, Folsom, and Beale Streets P, C-3-0, C-3-0 (SD), C3-S 80-X, 90-X, 200-S 

3740 Howard, Spear, Folsom, and Main Streets P, C-3-S 40-X, 200-S 

3749 Folsom, First, Harrison, and Second Streets M-1 84-X 

3764 Harrison, Rincon, Bryant, and Second Streets P 50-X 

Zoning Districts:

C-3-0: Downtown commercial office 

C-3-0 (SD): Downtown commercial office (special development) 

C-3-S: Downtown support 

M-1: Light industrial 

P: Public use 

S: See Planning Code Section 270(d) or refer to Height and Bulk maps 1H, 2H and 7H of the Zoning Map. 

Source: San Francisco Planning Department and Heller Manus Architects, June 2001 

4.1.3.4 South of Market 

The South of Market Area (SOMA) is generally bounded by Mission Street to the north, 

Townsend Street to the south, South Van Ness Avenue to the west and Second Street to the east. 

SOMA borders on the proposed Transbay Redevelopment Area to the east at Second Street, but 

does not overlap it. It was originally established as a well-to-do neighborhood during the mid1850s, but was completely destroyed by the earthquake and fire of 1906. SOMA was 

subsequently rebuilt as a warehouse and working-class residential district. SOMA is now 

dominated by light industrial manufacturing and office uses, although pockets of post-1906 

earthquake housing exist and substantial amounts of residential development – mainly in the 

form of live-work lofts – have been constructed within recent years. There are also cultural uses, 

generally clustered around the Yerba Buena Center, and entertainment uses along Folsom and 

Eleventh Streets. 

Zoning in SOMA is characterized by service and light industrial land uses. The SSO (Service 

Secondary Office) and SLI (Service Light Industry) zoning districts are located south of the 

C-3-S district, extending to Townsend Street. Residential Enclave Districts (RED) encompass 
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

4-12 4.1 LAND USE, WIND AND SHADOW

the clusters of low-scale, medium density, predominantly residential neighborhoods located 

along the narrow side streets of the South of Market SLR district. Within these predominantly 

residential enclaves lie a number of vacant parcels, parking lots and other properties in open 

storage use. 

4.1.3.5 Yerba Buena Center 

Yerba Buena Center is an 87-acre redevelopment area within the SOMA District that extends 

from Market Street on the north to Harrison Street on the south, and from Second Street on the 

east to the west along Fourth Street. The boundaries of the Yerba Buena Center lie to the west of 

the proposed Transbay Redevelopment Area, and their boundaries do not overlap. Uses within 

the Yerba Buena Center include the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, the Moscone 

Convention Center, and the Sony Metreon, as well as gardens, retail, recreation, amusement, 

entertainment, parking, and a substantial amount of housing. 

4.1.3.6 South Park 

South Park is a mixed-use neighborhood bounded by Bryant Street to the north, Brannan Street 

to the south, Third Street to the west, and Second Street to the east. South Park is within the 

SOMA Area Plan, but would not be part of the Transbay Redevelopment Area. South Park was 

San Francisco’s first master-planned upscale residential neighborhood, but it was completely 

destroyed in the earthquake and fire of 1906. Rebuilt to generally reflect what existed prior to 

the earthquake, it is now a mixed-use neighborhood surrounding a grassy open space. Office and 

commercial uses are prevalent, and residential uses are interspersed throughout. Zoning controls 

in South Park are guided by Planning Code Section 814, intended to “preserve the scale, density 

and mix of commercial and residential activities within this unique neighborhood.” 

4.1.3.7 Northeastern Waterfront 

The Northeastern Waterfront Planning Area is south and east of the proposed Transbay 

Redevelopment Area and extends from Aquatic Park to China Basin. This planning area 

contains four subareas, two of which – the Ferry Building Subarea and the South Beach Subarea 

– are directly adjacent to the study area for the present project. The Ferry Building Subarea 

surrounds the Ferry Building and contains a newly constructed open space plaza directly in front 

of the Ferry Building. The Ferry Building Subarea is linked to the South Beach Subarea by the 

waterfront promenade along The Embarcadero. Since the 1980s, the South Beach Subarea has 

been transforming into a new residential and commercial mixed-use neighborhood, which still 

retains some of its industrial and maritime flavor. The extension of the N-Judah Muni-Metro 

light rail line from Embarcadero Station provides a direct link to the downtown area. New midrise residential structures and a 45,000-seat baseball park (Pacific Bell Park) were recently 

constructed. This area contains a considerable amount of land zoned for manufacturing uses. 
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

4.1 LAND USE, WIND AND SHADOW 4-13 

4.1.3.8 Mission Bay North 

Mission Bay, under the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency, is divided into 

two redevelopment project areas: Mission Bay North and South. Mission Bay North borders on 

the study area and is bounded by Third Street, Townsend Street, Mission Creek, and Seventh 

Street. This area contains a portion of the Caltrain yard, as well as land uses that are in transition 

from their historical transportation and industrial functions. Construction of residential units, 

office space, retail, and public open space has begun in this area. The San Francisco 

Redevelopment Agency established land use controls regulating development of blocks 

encompassing and surrounding the Caltrain rail yard. The blocks that contain the Caltrain 

terminus and related spur alignments have been zoned MB-O, in order to be developed with 

large floor plan and smaller structures for office uses. 

4.1.4 EXISTING WIND CONDITIONS

Wind tunnel testing was performed to characterize existing wind conditions throughout the 

proposed redevelopment area and to provide a baseline for comparison with wind conditions that 

would result from potential development. The tests used the methodology of Planning Code 

Section 148. The results of the wind tunnel test, as documented in the Wind Test Technical 

Memorandum, are summarized in Section 5.1.2. Existing wind speeds were measured at sixtyone locations within the Transbay Redevelopment Area, where speeds are moderate to windy. 

Wind speeds, expressed as speeds that are exceeded 10 percent of the time, range from three mph 

to 11 mph; the average of these wind speeds is 5.5 miles per hour (mph). The highest wind 

speed of 11 mph occurs on the south side of Harrison Street at Second Street. All 61 points 

tested meet the Planning Code’s pedestrian-comfort criterion value of 11 mph. The Planning 

Code’s wind hazard criterion is currently not exceeded at any of the tested locations. A 

description of conditions in the four wind test subareas within the proposed Transbay 

Redevelopment Area is provided below. 

• Adjacent to or near the Transbay Terminal Building. Existing wind speeds are low, 

ranging from four to seven miles per hour. 

• Area bounded by Mission, Main, Folsom, and Beale Streets. Existing wind speeds in this 

area are also low, ranging from three to six miles per hour. 

• Adjacent to Folsom Street. Existing wind speeds are moderate to windy, ranging from 

three to ten miles per hour. 

• Adjacent to or near Essex Street. Existing wind speeds are moderate to windy, ranging 

from five to 11 miles per hour. 
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

4-14 4.2 SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS

4.1.5 SHADOW

The City of San Francisco Planning Code Section 295 generally prohibits new buildings that 

would cause substantial new shadow on open space under the jurisdiction of the San Francisco 

Recreation and Park Commission between one hour after sunrise and one hour before sunset, at 

any time of the year. Sections 146 and 147 of the Planning Code protect sunlight access to 

streets and sidewalks and provide for reduction of shadows on public and publicly accessible 

open spaces within the C-3 districts (the largest section of the plan area). The project would have 

an adverse impact if it would result in substantial new shadow on public open space under the 

jurisdiction of the Recreation and Park Commission during these hours. 

4.2 SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS 

Study area socioeconomic character is described in terms of population, employment, housing, 

income, age, education, and racial composition. The area is experiencing rapid changes in 

population, housing, and local business activity. Data from the U.S. Census 2000 will be 

released over the next two years and will be incorporated into this document as it becomes 

available. Information from the 1990 census has been updated using Association of Bay Area 

Governments (ABAG) and Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) data. 

The project area is included within four census tracts covering the area from south of Market 

Street to Sixteenth and Seventeenth Streets and from the Bay to Vermont and Eleventh Streets. 

These tracts are shown in Figure 4.2-1. Each tract consists of two TAZs (MTC Traffic Analysis 

Zones) except for Tract 607, which includes three TAZs. All information presented herein is at 

the tract level; the more detailed TAZ data were analyzed when drawing conclusions about the 

spatial distribution of activity. Tract 607 includes the Fourth and Townsend station. The Caltrain 

Downtown Extension component would traverse Tract 179.01 and a portion of Tract 176.02 

where the Transbay Terminal is located. The tail track would be located in Tract 179.01. 

The U.S. Census 2000 estimated the study area total population to be 8,903, with a household 

population of 6,588 in 4,243 households. This represents a substantial growth over the 1990 

population of 4,250 and 1,825 households. As shown in Table 4.2-1, the area now includes about 

1.15 percent of the total estimated San Francisco population of 776,733, while in 1990, the area 

represented 0.6 percent of the population of 723,960. Household growth has been slightly 

greater than population growth. Housing is almost entirely multi-family, with 98 percent of all 

residential units containing two or more dwelling units. Household size in the area is about 1.6 

persons, smaller than the 2.3 person average for the city as a whole. 

As shown in Table 4.2-2, the area provided an estimated 132,714 jobs in 2000, representing 

about 21 percent of total city employment. Census Tract 176.02 contains just under 55 percent 

of the jobs in the study area. 
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

4.2 SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS 4-15 

Figure 4.2-1: Study Area Census Tracts 
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

4-16 4.2 SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS

The median income of area households in 1989 ranged from approximately $21,000 (Tract 180) 

to $41,500 (Tract 179.01). The percentage of residents below the federal poverty level was 12.4 

in 1990, approximately the citywide average (see Table 4.2-3). 

Table 4.2-1: Project Area Population and Households in 2000 

Census Tract Total 

Population 

Population in 

Households1

Total 

Households 

Persons per 

Household 

176.02 

179.01 

180 

607 

534 

5,408 

2,285 

676 

342 

4,792 

914 

540 

257 

3,249 

494 

243 

1.3 

1.5 

1.9 

2.2 

Project Area Total: 8,903 6,588 4,243 1.6 

San Francisco:

Project Area as % of City: 

776,733

1.15% 

756,976 

.87% 

329,700

1.28% 

2.3

1 The discrepancy between total population and population in households is due to the number of individuals 

living in group quarters. 

Source: U.S. Census 2000

Table 4.2-2: Project Area Jobs and Employment Status of Residents in 2000 

Census Tract Project Area Jobs Employed Residents 

176.02 

179.01 

180 

607 

72,645 

32,594 

18,018 

9,457 

2,543 

4,783 

1,031 

926 

Project Area Total: 132,714 9,283 

San Francisco:

Project Area as % of City: 

634,430

20.92% 

444,851

2.09% 

Source: San Francisco Planning Department, 2000; U.S. Census 2000; U.S. Census 1990

Table 4.2-3: Project Area Household Income and Poverty Status in 1989 

Census Tract Median Household Income ($1989) Percent Below Poverty Level 

176.02 

179.01 

180 

607 

$35,125 

$41,465 

$20,724 

$37,000 

7.9% 

8.9% 

31.2% 

0.0% 

Project Area 

Total $20,724 - $37,000 12.4% 

Note: Information will be updated once the U.S. Census 2000 data regarding income levels becomes 

available. 

Source: U.S. Census 1990 
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

4.2 SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS 4-17 

Auto ownership within the study area is slightly less than for the city as a whole (0.7 autos per 

household compared with 1.3 citywide; see Table 4.2-4). This likely reflects the small 

household size and center-city location of the study area, but it points to a potential for high 

transit usage, similar to or even greater than that of San Francisco residents generally. 

Table 4.2-4: Auto Availability of Project Area Households in 2000 

Census Tract 

Average 

Autos per 

Household 

"0" Auto 

Households % "1" Auto 

Households % 

"2" or 

More Auto 

Households 

% Total 

Households % 

176.02 

179.01 

180 

607 

0.6 

0.9 

0.6 

0.9 

215 

260 

275 

10 

28.3 

34.2 

36.2 

1.32 

296 

1302 

215 

71 

13.9 

61 

10.1 

3.3 

16 

734 

215 

31 

1.8 

80.3 

23.5 

3.4 

1,952 

3,596 

1,121 

1,019 

100 

100 

100 

100 

Project Area 

Total 0.7 760 20 2,135 56.1 914 24 7,688 100 

San Francisco:

Project Area as 

% of City: 

1.2 88,827

0.86% 

28.2 127,474

1.67% 

40.4 99,288

0.92% 

31.5 315,546

2.44% 

100

Note: Estimate prepared as part of demographic database for regional transportation modeling process. 

Source: Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Forecasts for Regional Transportation Plan, 2000. 

In 2000, the median age of study area residents ranged from 34 (Tract 180) to 37 (Tracts 607 and 

176.02), below the city median of 37 years. The percentages of the very young (less than 16 

years) and elderly (62 years or older) were both below the city averages, reflecting the workingage population of the study area (see Table 4.2-5). Over 87 percent of study area residents were 

high school graduates and 38 percent were college graduates, while the percentages for San 

Francisco are 78 percent and 35 percent, respectively. Similar to income and employment, 

educational attainment is highest in the eastern portion of the study area, where about 50 percent 

of the residents have at least one college degree. 

Approximately 67 percent of area residents are white/Caucasian, which includes individuals of 

Hispanic origin. This is higher than the citywide average of about 54 percent. On the other 

hand, over 20 percent of study area residents are Black/African American, compared with 11 

percent citywide. Approximately 34 percent of all area residents were members of minority 

groups, which may also include Hispanics, compared with about 46 percent citywide. The racial 

make-up of the study area is shown in Table 4.2-6. 
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

4-18 4.2 SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS

Table 4.2-5: Age and Education of Project Area Residents in 2000 

Population by Age Group Educational 

Attainment1

Census Tract Median 

Age Under 

16 % 16-61 % 62 & 

Over % % H.S. 

Grad. 

% Col. 

Grad. 

176.02 

179.01 

180 

607 

37.3 

35.0 

34.0 

36.7 

10 

177 

84 

62 

1.9 

3.3 

3.7 

9.2 

506 

4,985 

2,128 

521 

94.8 

92.2 

93.1 

77.0 

18 

246 

73 

93 

3.4 

4.5 

3.2 

13.8 

90.0 

94.8 

71.1 

100.0 

60.0 

47.8 

13.3 

33.7 

Project Area Total 34.0 – 37.3 333 3.7 8,140 91.4 430 4.8 87.3 37.7 

San Francisco:

Project Area 

as % of City 

36.5 100,150

0.33% 

12.9 552,889 

1.47% 

71.2 123,694 

0.35% 

15.9 78.0 35.0

1

 Information will be updated once the U.S. Census 2000 data regarding education levels becomes available. 

Source: U.S. Census 2000; U.S. Census 1990 

Table 4.2-6: Race of Persons in Project Area in 2000

Total Population White Black/African Amer. Census Tract 

Number % Number % Number % 

176.02 

179.01 

180 

607 

534 

5,408 

2,285 

676 

100 

100 

100 

100 

321 

3,640 

1,046 

381 

60.1 

67.3 

45.8 

56.4 

87 

448 

670 

72 

16.3

8.3

29.3

10.7

Project Area Total: 8,903 100 5,388 60.5 871 9.78

San Francisco:

Project Area as % of City: 

776,733

1.14% 

100 385,728

1.4% 

49.7% 60,515

.112% 

7.8

Amer.Indian/ 

Alaska Native 

Asian/Pac. 

Islander Other Hispanic Origin* Census Tract 

Number % Number % Number % Number % 

176.02 

179.01 

180 

607 

2 

20 

27 

8 

0.3 

0.4 

1.2 

1.9 

82 

897 

256 

164 

15.4 

16.6 

11.2 

24.3 

42 

403 

286 

51 

7.9 

7.5 

12.5 

7.5 

56 

353 

421 

47 

10.5

6.5

18.4

7.0

Project Area Total: 57 0.6 1,399 15.7 782 8.8 877 9.9

San Francisco:

Project Area as % of City: 

3,458 

0.07% 

0.45 243,409

0.18% 

31.3 83,623

.101% 

10.8 109,504 

.113% 

14.1

* Included in other racial categories 

Source: U.S. Census 2000 
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

4.3 COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES 4-19 

4.3 COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES 

Figure 4.3-1 depicts a variety of community facilities in relation to the project study area, 

including police and fire safety services, medical facilities, parks and other recreational facilities, 

schools, and churches. 

4.3.1 PUBLIC AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES

The U.S. Postal Service maintains two facilities in the study area: a local post office at 460 

Brannan Street and a processing and distribution center at Folsom and Main Streets. 

Medical/social welfare facilities include the Seafarers Medical Center, a non-profit clinic at 40 

Lansing Street, and the Delancey Street housing complex at Delancey and Brannan Streets on 

The Embarcadero. Operated by the non-profit Delancey Street Foundation, this four-story 

complex serves individuals recovering from alcohol and drug-related or other social problems 

and includes offices of the foundation's moving and transportation company and a restaurant. 

Five child care centers are located within the project study area: Discovery Treehouse 

Educational Center at 220 Spear Street; Healthy Environmental Child Development Center at 95 

Hawthorne Street; Kinderhaven Children's Center at 474 The Embarcadero; South of Market 

Child Care Inc. at 366 Clementina Street; and PG&E building at Mission and Beale. 

Parklands, schools and religious institutions are discussed in Section 4.4. 

4.3.2 SAFETY AND EMERGENCY SERVICES

4.3.2.1 Police 

The San Francisco City Police Department is responsible for general law enforcement in the 

study area, with both auto and foot patrols daily. The Police Department’s Southern Station, 

located at 850 Bryant Street, provides police protection services to the study area. The Southern 

Police District is bounded by the Bay on the east, China Basin Channel on the south, Market 

Street on the north, and Duboce, Thirteenth, and Division Streets on the west. The district also 

includes the area bounded by Vermont, Sixteenth, and DeHaro Streets. Approximately 120 

officers serve this district, and approximately five percent (six officers) are assigned to the 

proposed Transbay Redevelopment Area. 
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

4-20 4.3 COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES

Figure 4.3-1: Community Facilities, Police/Fire and Emergency Services 
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

4.3 COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES 4-21 

In 2000, approximately 7,374 incidents – about 17 percent of the citywide total of Part I criminal 

incidents, which include violent crimes such as homicides, burglaries, and assaults – were 

reported in the Southern District. The average response time (measured from the time the call is 

received to the time officers arrive on the scene) for the Southern District is approximately five 

minutes for Priority A calls (life-threatening situations, severe assaults and crimes in progress) 

and about 15 minutes for Priority B calls (urgent situations where the crime has already 

occurred), which is about the same as citywide response times. 

In addition to the local police force, the California Highway Patrol (CHP) has legal jurisdiction 

over the Transbay Terminal building and provides law enforcement officers to patrol the interior 

and the sidewalks surrounding the structure. Other security and enforcement agencies with 

jurisdiction in or near the study area include Amtrak, whose security officers police Caltrain 

vehicles and patrol Caltrain station and parking areas, and Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) 

police who patrol the Embarcadero and Montgomery BART stations within the study area. AC 

Transit and Golden Gate Transit also have security personnel to monitor their facilities in the 

Transbay Terminal. 

4.3.2.2 Fire and Emergency Medical Services 

The San Francisco Fire Department provides fire suppression and prevention services as well as 

first response to medical emergencies. There are two fire stations within the study area: Station 

1, located at 676 Howard Street, has fifteen personnel and is equipped with one engine (pumper), 

one (ladder) truck, one heavy rescue squad, and one ambulance; Station 8, at 36 Bluxome Street, 

has thirteen personnel, including a Battalion Chief, and is equipped with one engine, one truck, 

one hosetender, and one ambulance. Five other stations staffed with from six to fourteen 

personnel each and equipped with a total of five engines, two trucks, and five ambulances, are 

located nearby. Station 2, at 1340 Powell Street, has eleven personnel, including a Battalion 

Chief, and is equipped with one engine and one truck. Station 13, at 530 Sansome Street, has 

fourteen personnel, including a Division Chief and a Rescue Captain, and is equipped with one 

engine, one truck, and one ambulance. Station 29, at 299 Vermont Street, has six personnel and 

is equipped with one engine and one ambulance. Station 35/Fireboats, at Pier 22 1⁄2 has eight 

personnel and is equipped with one engine, one ambulance, and two fireboats. Station 36, at 109 

Oak Street, has six personnel, including a Battalion Chief, and is equipped with one engine, as 

well as the Department’s Hazardous Materials Unit. A new fire station with one engine and an 

ambulance has recently been proposed to be located in the northeastern portion of the Mission 

Bay area, although the actual location is as yet unspecified. 

The Fire Department uses both the low-pressure hydrant system and the high-pressure hydrant 

Auxiliary Water Supply System (AWSS) for fire fighting within the Transbay Redevelopment 

Area and the Caltrain storage yard properties. The AWSS provides an independent secondary 

source of water exclusively for fire fighting and is just inland of The Embarcadero. Covering the 

entire study area and vicinity, the AWSS system also includes two additional, back-up 

emergency water supplies: a Portable Water Supply System that can duplicate the underground 
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

4-22 4.3 COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES

high-pressure system above ground, and a system of underground cisterns. There are five 

underground cisterns located within the study area, totaling 334,000 gallons of water storage 

capacity, one at Howard and Beale Streets, one at Howard and First Streets, one at Folsom and 

First Streets, one at Second and Folsom Streets, and one at First and Harrison Streets. The water 

mains that serve the area are in satisfactory condition and both the water supply and pressure are 

considered adequate for fire fighting purposes. The Fire Department has no planned water 

supply improvements to the AWSS; however, Mayor Willie Brown recently proposed a budget 

of approximately $180 million for a major upgrade to the City’s water system for the fiscal year 

(2001-02), which, if implemented, should improve the low-pressure system. 

Incidents involving known hazardous materials are handled by the Fire Department’s Hazardous 

Materials Unit (Haz Mat 1), which is made up of members from Engine Company 36, located at 

109 Oak Street, and backed by Rescue Unit and Battalion 2 members. The San Francisco Fire 

Code (as well as the San Francisco Health Code) establishes a system for permitting and 

monitoring the use and disposal of hazardous materials. 

Emergency medical services in San Francisco are provided by Fire Department ambulances, 

which are complemented by Fire Department Rescue Units, and engines and trucks with “first 

response” capability. Ambulance Zone 1, the busiest of all eight San Francisco Zones, spans the 

study area, which represents nearly one fourth of the zone. Zone 1 extends from Van Ness 

Avenue on the west, Townsend Street on the south, and The Embarcadero on the northeast. 

4.3.2.3 Disaster Preparedness 

The San Francisco Mayor's Office of Emergency Services plans and coordinates emergency 

services in the event of a natural disaster. The City’s Disaster Preparedness Plan divides the City 

into 10 districts. The Transbay Terminal and the Transbay Redevelopment Area are in District 

Three – South of Market Southern Waterfront. The designated fire station in the area is 

Battalion Station 8, located at 38 Bluxome Street. The designated first aid shelter is the South of 

Market Health Center located at 551 Minna Street. A staging area for the district has yet to be 

designated. 

4.3.2.4 Solid Waste Management 

Solid waste throughout the City is collected by Golden Gate Disposal Company and Sunset 

Scavenger Company, both subsidiaries of Norcal Waste Systems, Inc. Waste is transported to a 

transfer station at the San Francisco-Brisbane border, where it is hauled by the Sanitary Fill 

Company to the Altamont Landfill northeast of Livermore in Alameda County. San Francisco 

has a contract for disposal of all of its solid waste, up to a total of 15 million tons, at the 

Altamont Landfill until approximately 2010, the year at which the tonnage limit is expected to be 

reached, depending on changes in the rates of waste generation and diversion. At the beginning 

of 2001, about 6.4 million tons of contracted capacity remained at Altamont. Once the tonnage 

limit at Altamont has been reached, the City would likely contract with the Altamont Landfill or 

another nearby landfill for additional disposal capacity. 
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

4.4 PARKLANDS, SCHOOLS AND RELIGIONS INSTITUTIONS 4-23 

Approximately 42 percent of San Francisco’s solid waste stream was diverted in 1999. Since the 

majority of waste produced is in the commercial and industrial sectors, much of the City’s ability 

to reach the State mandated (AB 939) 50 percent diversion goal will rely on the reduction and 

diversion of commercial and industrial waste. Various conservation activities, such as recycling 

and public outreach programs, are in progress that may further reduce the volumes going to 

landfill. 

4.4 PARKLANDS, SCHOOLS AND RELIGIONS INSTITUTIONS 

4.4.1 PARKLANDS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES

Although the largely developed study area is notable for lack of publicly accessible open space 

and parks within its boundaries, the area does include public parks, a municipal marina, public 

waterfront areas, and several public plazas, as shown on Figure 4.3-1. South Park, described 

below, is the only open space within the study area under the jurisdiction of the San Francisco 

Recreation and Park Department. However, the Recreation and Park Department publicly 

provides and maintains open space near the study area including the South of Market Recreation 

Center, located on Sixth Street at Folsom Street, and Justin Herman Plaza at the foot of Market 

Street at The Embarcadero. 

South Park, encircled by South Park Avenue between Second and Third Streets, is an 

approximately one-acre, wooded neighborhood park with pedestrian sidewalks and benches and 

a children's play area. South Beach Park is an approximately three-acre city park located along 

The Embarcadero between King Street and China Basin. South Beach Park adjoins the South 

Beach Harbor, a 690-boat berth marina for small boats. Mission Creek Park is approximately 15 

acres, with portions bordering the north and south edges of China Basin Channel. The park is 

being developed as part of the Mission Bay North Redevelopment Plan. Rincon Point Park is 

approximately three acres located along The Embarcadero at Folsom Street, developed as part of 

the Rincon Point Redevelopment Plan. With the reconstruction of The Embarcadero roadway 

between Market and King Streets, improvements have been made along the Bay that provide 

increased public access and a continuous pedestrian walkway (Herb Caen Way) between South 

Beach Harbor, Market Street, and points north. 

To the south and west of South Beach Harbor is China Basin, a channel extending from 

San Francisco Bay inland to just east of Seventh Street and I-280. The basin provides berths for 

sailboats, houseboats, and other moderately sized craft in the channel area west of Fourth Street. 

Along the south bank of the basin, just outside of the project area, is a linear community park 

with a pedestrian way and community garden plots. 
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

4-24 4.5 FISCAL/ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS

Within the commercial office district in the vicinity of the Transbay Terminal are a number of 

privately developed plazas open to the public. Some are at street level; others are elevated and 

accessible by stairs or escalators. 

Recreational facilities near the Caltrain Station at Fourth and Townsend include San Francisco 

Tennis Club at 645 Fifth Street and Pacific Bell Park, a 45,000-seat baseball stadium on King 

Street between Second and Third Streets. 

4.4.2 SCHOOLS

No public or private schools (grades K-12) are located in the study area. Secondary-level private 

schools and colleges located within the study area include Golden Gate University's main 

campus, which is located on Mission Street, between First, Second, and Stevenson Streets. The 

campus includes administrative offices, classrooms, meeting facilities, and auditoriums. 

Approximately 5,000 full-and part-time undergraduate and graduate students attend. The 

Academy of Art College has academic facilities within the study area at 79 New Montgomery 

and Mission Street, and 180 New Montgomery and Howard Street. Heald College has facility 

locations at Fremont and Mission Streets and on Howard Street near Third Street. The 

San Francisco Institute of Architecture (SFIA), a recently formed graduate school in architecture, 

has a new facility at 555 Howard Street, between First and Second Streets that includes exhibit 

gallery space, a library, seminar rooms, computer rooms, workshop space, and a design studio. 

These community facilities are shown on Figure 4.3-1. 

4.4.3 RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS

There is one religious institution in the study area, Apostleship of the Sea at 399 Fremont Street 

(at Harrison), which also provides temporary housing. The Grand Oriente Filipino Masonic 

Temple is located at 95 Jack London Street, south of South Park between Second and Third 

Streets. This religious institution is shown on Figure 4.3-1. 

4.5 FISCAL/ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS 

Existing residential and nonresidential privately-owned properties within the study area currently 

generate revenues to the City and County of San Francisco through direct and indirect taxation. 

These revenues include property taxes, payroll taxes, retail sales taxes, parking taxes, and other 

less significant taxes, such as utility taxes. Tax revenues associated with the properties to be 

acquired for the Transbay Terminal/Caltrain Downtown Extension/Redevelopment Project are 

estimated in Section 5.6, Fiscal and Economic Impacts, which also includes an estimate of 

property acquisition costs. 
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

4.6 AIR QUALITY 4-25 

Total revenues for the City and County of San Francisco in Fiscal Year 1999-2000 were 

approximately $2.5 billion, including $1.4 billion in tax revenues. Property taxes, which 

accounted for an estimated $544 million of the total revenues, are levied on the assessed value 

for all privately-owned property. The property tax rate for Fiscal Year 1999-2000 was 1.129 

percent. Of the collected property tax, approximately 75 percent was allocated to the City and 

County of San Francisco’s general fund; the remaining 25 percent of property tax revenues 

accrued to debt service and special revenue funds. 

Business taxes accounted for approximately $268 million of Fiscal Year 1999-2000 revenues. At 

the time, business taxes paid by individual businesses were based on the payroll tax or a gross 

receipts tax, whichever netted the larger tax amount. The payroll tax was levied on payroll 

expenses of persons or associates doing business in San Francisco, while the business tax was a 

gross receipts tax on all business activities performed by persons or associates in San Francisco. 

Subsequently, business tax payments in the City and County of San Francisco were changed to 

be solely based on the payroll tax. 

In Fiscal Year 1999-2000, the City and County of San Francisco’s revenues included $547 

million in “other local taxes, ” which largely included sales taxes. The total sales tax rate in San 

Francisco in Fiscal Year 1999-2000 was 8.25 percent. Of this amount, the City and County of 

San Francisco received 1.25 percent (i.e., 1.00 percent to the City and 0.25 percent to the 

County). In San Francisco another 1.0 percent is levied and apportioned among the San 

Francisco County Transportation Authority, the San Francisco Educational Finance Authority, 

and the San Francisco Public Finance Authority. 

Other major revenue sources for San Francisco in Fiscal Year 1999-2000 were 

intergovernmental transfers ($805 million), charges for services ($186 million), rents and 

concessions ($72 million), and interest and investment income ($47 million). 

4.6 AIR QUALITY 

This section describes regional, state, and federal air pollutant standards and presents information 

regarding existing air quality in the project area and vicinity. 

4.6.1 FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL AIR QUALITY STANDARDS

The Federal Clean Air Act of 1970 resulted in the adoption of federal air pollutant standards, 

known as National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), for pollutants including carbon 

monoxide (CO), ozone (O3), sulfur oxides (SOx), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and particulate matter 

less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10), and fine particulate matter (PM2.5). Areas exceeding 

federal NAAQS are identified and designated as nonattainment areas. The state air pollutant 

standards are known as the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS), and are 

generally more stringent than the NAAQS. Federal and state standards are shown in Table 4.6-1. 
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

4-26 AIR QUALITY

Existing compliance (i.e., area "attainment") with the NAAQS and CAAQS for criteria 

pollutants is discussed below, along with existing pollutant concentrations. 

Table 4.6-1: Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards 

Pollutant Averaging Time National Standard California Standard 

Ozone 1 hour 

8 hour 

0.12 ppm* 

0.08 ppm 

0.09 ppm 

N/A 

Carbon Monoxide 1 hour 

8 hour 

35 ppm 

9 ppm 

20 ppm 

9.0 ppm 

Nitrogen Oxides 1 hour 

annual 

--- 

0.053 ppm 

0.25 ppm 

--- 

Sulfur 

Dioxide 

1 hour 

24 hour 

annual 

--- 

365 μ g /m3

80 μg /m3

0.25 ppm 

0.04 ppm 

--- 

Suspended Particulates 

(PM10) 

24 hour 

annual 

150 μg/m3

50 μg/m3

50 μg/m3

30 μg/m3

Particulate Matter - Fine 

(PM2.5) 

24 hour 

annual 

65 μg/m3

15 μg/m3

---------- 

* ppm = parts per million; μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter 

Source: California Air Resources Board, 1999. 

The project site is within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (BAAB), which comprises the 

nine-county Bay Area. Air quality in the BAAB is regulated primarily by the Bay Area Air 

Quality Management District (BAAQMD), which is responsible for regulating stationary source 

emissions and submitting federally- and state-required documentation to the California Air 

Resources Board (ARB). The ARB regulates mobile source emissions and is responsible for 

reviewing state-required documentation submitted by regional agencies such as the BAAQMD, 

and for submitting federally-required documents to the United States Environmental Protection 

Agency (US EPA). 

Regionally, BAAQMD has standards for project-related air contaminant emissions levels that it 

considers significant. These standards, expressed in terms of pounds per day, are presented in 

Table 4.6-2. 

Table 4.6-2: BAAQMD Thresholds for Project-Related 

Contaminant Emissions 

Pollutant Pounds per Day From Project Operations 

Reactive Organic Gas 80 

Nitrogen Oxides 80 

PM10 80 

Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District, BAAQMD CEQA Guideline, Table 3, 

pg. 15, April 1996. 
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

4.6 AIR QUALITY 4-27 

4.6.2 EXISTING AIR QUALITY AND REGIONAL ATTAINMENT STATUS

The transport and concentration of air pollutants are influenced by three principal meteorological 

factors: wind direction, wind speed, and atmospheric stability. The San Francisco Bay Area is 

in a large basin enclosed by hills that open into valleys. This topography creates the potential to 

trap and accumulate air pollutants and combines with variable weather conditions, airflow, and 

wind speeds to cause differing air pollution concentrations. 

Existing air quality conditions in the study area are reflected by measurements taken at 

BAAQMD monitoring stations. The nearest monitoring station is the Arkansas Street 

monitoring station in San Francisco, located at 10 Arkansas Street, near Potrero Hill. 

Table 4.6-3 presents five years of data at this station to demonstrate pollution trends. The table 

also indicates federal and state standards for these pollutants, and where these pollutant standards 

have been exceeded. 

According to BAAQMD, the BAAB is in attainment with national standards for carbon 

monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and annual PM10. It is designated non-attainment for 

ozone, and unclassified for PM2.5 and 24-hour PM10. With respect to California standards, the 

BAAB has attainment status for carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, and sulfur dioxide. It is 

designated non-attainment for ozone and PM10. 

The Bay Area experienced no days over the federal ozone standard in 1997, eight days in 1998, 

three days in 1999, and three days in 2000. This pattern can be attributed to differences in the 

number and severity of episodes of “ozone conducive” weather from one year to another. Even 

though there has been steady progress in reducing total volatile organic compounds (VOC) and 

NOx emissions in the Bay Area, the reductions have not been enough to prevent exceedences of 

the ozone standards under all meteorological conditions. The BAAQMD, the Metropolitan 

Transportation Commission (MTC), and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) 

recently prepared the Bay Area 2001 Ozone Attainment Plan. This plan is a revision to the Bay 

Area part of California's plan to achieve the national ozone standard. The plan was prepared in 

response to EPA's Federal Register notice of March 30, 2001 proposing to partially approve and 

partially disapprove the Bay Area's 1999 Ozone Attainment Plan. At a public hearing on 

October 24, 2001, the MTC and ABAG boards adopted the Plan and subsequently submitted it to 

the ARB. The ARB approved the 2001 Ozone Attainment Plan on November 1, 2001 and 

forwarded the Plan to the US EPA for review and approval. 
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

4-28 AIR QUALITY

Table 4.6-3: Air Quality Standards, Ambient Measurements and Violations, 

Arkansas Street, San Francisco 

Pollutant State 

Standard 

Federal 

Standard Year Maximum Level Violation Days 

Ozone 

1 hour 

0.09 ppm 0.12 ppm 1996 

1997 

1998 

1999 

2000 

0.07 

0.07 

0.05 

0.08 

0.06 

0/0 

0/0 

0/0 

0/0 

0/0 

Particulates 

(PM10) 

24 hours 

50 μg/m3

 150 μg/m3 1996 

1997 

1998 

1999 

2000 

70.9 

81.0 

52.4 

77.9 

63.2 

2/0 

3/0 

1/0 

6/0 

2/0 

Carbon 

Monoxide 

8 hour 

9.1 ppm 9.5 ppm 1996 

1997 

1998 

1999 

2000 

3.8 

3.5 

4.0 

3.7 

3.2 

0/0 

0/0 

0/0 

0/0 

0/0 

Nitrogen 

Oxides 

25 ppm – 1 hr 0.05 ppm – 

annual 

1996 

1997 

1998 

1999 

2000 

0.08 

0.07 

0.08 

0.10 

0.07 

0/0 

0/0 

0/0 

0/0 

0/0 

Sulfur Dioxide 0.05 ppm – 1 

hr 

0.14 ppm – 

24 hr 

1996 

1997 

1998 

1999 

2000 

0.008 

0.007 

0.005 

0.007 

0.008 

0/0 

0/0 

0/0 

0/0 

0/0 

Notes: 

ppm = parts per million 

μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter 

Violation days = number of days exceeding State or federal standard 

Source: California Air Resources Board, Air Quality Data, 1996-2000. 

4.6.3 REGULATORY SETTING

As amended in 1990, the federal Clean Air Act provides the current framework for air 

conformity. The Clean Air Act defines conformity to mean: 

“Conformity to an implementation plan's purpose of eliminating or reducing the 

severity and number of violations of the national ambient air quality standards and 

achieving expeditious attainment of such standards . . .” 

Section 176 of the Clean Air Act specifies that no federal agency may approve, support, or fund 

an activity that does not conform to the applicable implementation plan. In late 1993, the EPA 

promulgated final rules for determining conformity of transportation plans, programs, and 
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

4.7 NOISE AND VIBRATION 4-29 

projects. These final rules, contained in 40 CFR 93A (Code of Federal Regulations), govern the 

conformity assessment for the proposed project. 

The BAAQMD, in coordination with the MTC and ABAG, is responsible for preparing air 

quality plans pursuant to the Federal and California Clean Air Acts. Under the Federal Clean Air 

Act, State Implementation Plans (SIPs) are required for areas that are designated as nonattainment for ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, or inhaleable 

particulate matters. For the BAAB, a SIP is required for ozone since the region is currently 

designated as a federal non-attainment area for ozone. As discussed previously, the most current 

SIP is called the Bay Area 2001 Ozone Attainment Plan, which was adopted by the MTC, 

ABAG, and BAAQMD in October 2001. ARB adopted this Plan in November 2001, and EPA 

approved the associated emissions budget in February 2002. 

Whereas the SIP is prepared pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act, the Bay Area Clean Air Plan 

(CAP) is prepared to meet the requirements of the California Clean Air Act. The CAP is the 

region’s plan for reducing ground-level ozone. The CAP identifies how the BAAB would meet 

the state ozone standard by its attainment date. The 2000 CAP focuses on identifying and 

implementing control measures that would reduce ozone. It was adopted by the BAAQMD in 

December 2000. 

The MTC is responsible for ensuring that the Bay Area Regional Transportation Improvement 

Program (TIP) and Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) conform to the SIP. The 2001 RTP was 

adopted by MTC in March 2002 following EPA’s approval of the Bay Area mobile source 

emissions budget. The 2003 TIP was adopted by the MTC on January 22, 2003 and was 

federally approved on February 3, 2003.” 

4.7 NOISE AND VIBRATION 

4.7.1 EXISTING NOISE ENVIRONMENT

The noise environment of the study area, like that in most urban areas, is dominated by 

automobile and truck traffic noise, with traffic on the Bay Bridge most pervasive in areas closest 

to the Bridge. Other noise sources in the project area include small aircraft flyovers and normal 

community activity. 

A noise survey was conducted in July 1995, with one additional noise measurement in 

November 1996, for the Caltrain San Francisco Downtown Extension Draft EIS/EIR. Additional 

noise analysis was done in 2001. The original survey documented the existing noise 

environment in the study area and provided data necessary for accurate estimation of how the 

noise environment would change under project alternative conditions. Long-term (24-hour) 

noise monitoring sites were located at residential complexes and the site of a planned residential 

high-rise. Short-term (30 minutes) measurement sites were located near sensitive receptors 
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

4-30 NOISE AND VIBRATION

along the proposed alignments and near roadways that are the primary contributors to ambient 

noise levels. 

The data obtained in the 1995-96 noise survey remain valid for the current project. Noise 

conditions in the corridor have not changed substantially. Supplementary measurements were 

taken in May and June of 2001. Table 4.7-1 presents results of the 24-hour and short-term 

surveys, and Figure 4.7-1 indicates the locations of the noise measurement sites. 

Table 4.7-1: Summary of Noise Survey Results 

Start Results 

Location Type (dBA) 

Date Time Ldn Leq

LT1: Bayside Village 24-hour 7/24/95 11:00 72 -- 

LT2: Bay Crest Residential 24-hour 7/24/95 12:00 76 -- 

LT3: Delancey Street 24-hour 7/25/95 13:00 71 -- 

LT4: South Beach Marina 24-hour 7/25/95 14:00 64 -- 

LT5: Oriental Warehouse 24-hour 7/26/95 15:00 67 -- 

LT6: Townsend Street 24-hour 6/18/01 08:00 76 -- 

ST1: Parking Lot near Bayside Village 30-minute 7/25/95 16:52 72* 69 

ST2: South Beach Marina 30-minute 7/26/95 10:08 67* 64 

ST3: Bayside Village, Bryant Street 30-minute 7/26/95 16:56 71* 68 

ST4: Parking Lot, Planned Residential (Century 

Development) 

30-minute 7/26/95 18:18 60* 57 

ST5: Bay Crest Residential, Beale Street 30-minute 7/27/95 14:05 75* 72 

ST6: Residential between Folsom and Harrison, Essex 

Street side 

60-minute 11/4/96 15:50 68* 65 

ST 7: Parking lot south of existing Caltrain Station and 

yard 

30-minute 6/18/01 11:51 71* 69 

ST 7: Parking lot south of existing Caltrain Station and 

yard 

30-minute 6/19/01 07:43 71* 67 

* Ldn at short-term sites estimated as Leq + 3 dBA. 

Source: Harris Miller Miller & Hanson, August 2001.

The results are typical for an urban area and are presented in terms of the Leq (Equivalent Sound 

Level), which is the standard measure for traffic noise, and Ldn (Day-Night Equivalent Sound 

Level), which is a good representation of community noise levels.1

 

1 Leq is a measure of noise exposure over time, which is referred to as "equivalent" since it is equivalent to the level of a steady

sound which, over a referenced duration and location, has the same A-weighted sound energy as fluctuating sound. Durations of 

one hour and one day are commonly used. Ldn is a measure of noise exposure over a 24-hour period, with an adjustment for 

nighttime noise to account for people being more sensitive to nighttime noises. Both measurements are presented here in terms 

of dBA, or A-weighted decibels, which are logarithmic units of measurement filtered to approximate human hearing. 
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

NOISE AND VIBRATION 4-31 

Figure 4.7- 1: Noise Monitoring Locations 
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

4-32 NOISE AND VIBRATION

To account for most people being more sensitive to noise during nighttime hours, the calculation 

of Ldn includes a weighting factor for noise that occurs between the hours of 10 PM and 7 AM. 

The effect of this weighting factor is that a noise event, such as a loud truck, that occurs during 

the nighttime is equivalent to ten of the same events during daytime hours. 

As shown in Table 4.7-1, existing Ldn measurements in the study area range from 60 to 76 dBA. 

The highest noise levels were measured at sites directly exposed to the Bay Bridge traffic. The 

lowest levels of noise exposure were measured at the South Beach Marina Apartments and at the 

site for the Century development. The South Beach Marina site was completely shielded from 

the bridge. Although the Century Development site is just south of Mission Street near several 

high traffic volume streets where Ldn would normally range between 65 to 70 dBA or higher, the 

noise levels are relatively low due to the shielding effect of large buildings around the site. 

4.7.2 EXISTING VIBRATION

Ambient vibration measurements were performed as part of the 1995 noise survey and were 

taken simultaneously with the noise measurements at the five short-term measurement sites. 

Supplemental vibration measurements were taken in May and June of 2001 to further define the 

vibration propagation characteristics along the Second Street corridor, and to characterize the 

response of representative buildings to ground-borne vibration. The major existing sources of 

ground-borne vibration are traffic on local streets, particularly large buses and trucks, mechanical 

equipment associated with buildings, and existing Caltrain and Muni operations. Figure 4.7-2 

indicates the locations of the vibration propagation test sites. Table 4.7-2 presents results of the 

vibration survey in terms of the range of route mean square (RMS) vibration velocity expressed 

in decibels (VdB in this analysis).2

 The normal threshold of human perception of vibration is 

around 65 VdB, and most people find levels up to 75 to 80 VdB acceptable for residential land 

uses as long as the vibration happens only intermittently. Typical levels of vibration measured in 

the study area were in the 40 to 50 VdB range, with the highest level at 58. This indicates that 

existing ground-borne vibration in the study area is almost always below the threshold of human 

perception. 

The highest levels of ambient ground-borne vibration were measured at the Clock Tower 

building at Bryant and Second Streets. Both exterior and interior vibration was measured. The 

exterior location was on the sidewalk relatively close to the street. Even at this location, the 

highest vibration levels were only slightly above what can be perceived by most humans. 

 

2 RMS (root-mean-square) amplitude represents the average energy over a short time interval; typically one second is used to 

evaluate human responses to vibration. RMS is considered the best available measure of potential human annoyance from 

ground vibration; it differs from peak particle velocity (PPV), which is used to define the thresholds for potential building 

damage from construction vibration. PPV represents the maximum instantaneous peak in the velocity of an object's vibratory 

motion. VdB is used in this analysis to denote decibels. 
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

NOISE AND VIBRATION 4-33 

Figure 4.7-2: Vibration Propagation Test Sites 
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

4-34 NOISE AND VIBRATION

In addition to the measurements of ambient vibration, vibration propagation tests were 

performed to characterize how local geologic conditions affect vibration propagation in the study 

area. The vibration propagation tests performed for the study area used a weight dropped onto a 

load cell to cause a ground vibration pulse. The impact force of the weight was measured with 

the load cell, and accelerometers were used to measure the vibration pulse at distances from 25 

to 200 feet away. 

Table 4.7-2: Summary of Ambient Vibration Results 

Measurement Site [1] Location 

Typical 

Background 

Vibration 

(VdB) [2] 

Vibration Sources 

V1 (ST1 on Figure 4.7-1) Parking Lot near Bayside Village 35-40 Buses and trucks 

V2 (ST2 on Figure 4.7-1) South Beach Marina 35-40 Buses and trucks 

V3 (ST3 on Figure 4.7-1) Bayside Village, Bryant Street 40-50 

Cars into building, 

trucks, traffic on Bay 

Bridge 

V4 (ST4 on Figure 4.7-1) Parking Lot (planned Century 

residential development) 35-40 Cars 

V5 (ST5 on Figure 4.7-1) Bay Crest Residential, Beale 

Street 40-43 Trucks, traffic on Bay Bridge, cars 

V6 (VP2 on Figure 4.7-2) Harrison Street Parking Lot 36-40 Trucks, traffic on Bay 

Bridge, cars 

V7 (VP4 on Figure 4.7-2) Second St. & Bryant (Clock 

Tower building, exterior) 55-65 

Trucks, traffic on Bay 

Bridge, cars, people 

on sidewalk 

V8 (VP4 on Figure 4.7-2) Second St. & Bryant (Clock 

Tower building, interior) 50-60 Trucks, traffic on Bay Bridge, cars 

Vibration measurements at V1 through V5 were taken in conjunction with short-term (ST) noise measurements. Vibration 

measurements at sites V6 through V8 coincided with vibration propagation (VP) tests. 

Vibration levels are in terms of RMS vibration velocity in decibels with a reference quantity of 1 μin./sec. 

Source: Harris Miller Miller & Hanson, August 2001. 

A test of existing Caltrain vibration was also conducted at the intersection of Hubbell and 

Seventh Streets. The results of this test were used to develop a force density curve that is 

representative of the existing commuter rail equipment. The results of the vibration propagation 

tests in combination with the train vibration tests were used to estimate future ground-borne 

vibration levels from train operations along the proposed Townsend and Second Street corridors. 

Locations of vibration propagation testing sites are described in Table 4.7-3 and shown on 

Figure 4.7-2. 
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

4.8 GEOLOGY AND SEISMICITY 4-35 

Table 4.7-3: Vibration Propagation Measurement Sites 

Site # Description 

VP0 Hubbell and Seventh Street (existing train vibration). Both train vibration and transfer mobility were 

measured at this site. The information was used to develop a force density curve that is representative of 

the existing commuter rail equipment. The vibration measurements at this site were used to characterize 

the ground-borne vibration along Townsend before the subway structure would be founded in bedrock. 

VP1 Marine Firefighter’s Union Building, 240 Second Street (outdoor-to-indoor test). The test at this location 

represents the high-rise apartment building at 246 Second Street, and the Marriott Hotel under 

construction across from the Marine Firefighter’s Union Building. 

VP2 Parking lot adjacent to 400 Harrison Street (outdoor vibration propagation). Near the I-80 overpass at 

Second Street, this site represents the single family homes between Bryant Street and Brannan Street, 

west of Second Street. An accelerometer was placed on a landing at the rear of 400 Harrison Street, to 

provide an estimate of the ground-to-foundation coupling loss between a building and the ground. 

VP3 Private parking lot on Brannon Street near Stanford Street (outdoor vibration propagation). This site 

represents the apartment building on Townsend Street, near the current layover facility. An 

accelerometer was placed on the foundation of the nearby Pac-Bell garage to provide an estimate of the 

ground-to-foundation couple loss. 

VP4 Clock Tower residential buildings (outdoor-to-indoor vibration test). This site represents the outdoor-toindoor vibration propagation at the Clock Tower Apartments. 

Source: Harris Miller Miller & Hanson, August 2001.

4.8 GEOLOGY AND SEISMICITY 

This section describes the geology of the project area and the susceptibility of site soils to 

seismically induced hazards.

4.8.1 GEOLOGIC SETTING

The project area, and the San Francisco Peninsula in general, is located in the Coast Ranges 

geomorphic province, although the dominant northwesterly trend of ridges and valleys 

characteristic of the Coast Ranges is somewhat obscured within the City of San Francisco, 

except for features such as Russian and Telegraph Hills. The regional topography is 

characterized by relatively rugged hills formed by Jurassic- to Cretaceous-aged bedrock, 

surrounded by low flat-lying areas that are underlain by Quaternary sedimentary deposits. 

Bedrock consists of highly deformed and fractured sedimentary rocks of the Franciscan 

assemblage. Locally, Franciscan bedrock contains large through-going shear zones such as the 

City College and Fort Point --Potrero Hill -- Hunters Point shear zones. 

From a geotechnical standpoint, the study corridor is divided into two general areas: the portions 

of the study area that are located bayward of the historic shoreline, and portions of the study area 
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

4-36 4.8 GEOLOGY AND SEISMICITY 

on the land side of that line. The portions of the study area that are bayward of the historic 

(c. 1848) shoreline represent areas reclaimed by filling former marshes and estuaries of the Bay, 

and include the former Yerba Buena Cove, South Beach, and Mission Bay. (See Figure 4.8-1.) 

Today these areas include much of the Financial District, South of Market, and Mission Bay 

areas of San Francisco. Soils in these areas are generally characterized by the presence of soft 

and compressible Bay Mud, under the surficial fill placed when these areas were reclaimed in the 

late 1800s and early 1900s. The depth of these sediments varies substantially depending on the 

position of the area of interest relative to the old shoreline. Fill materials also vary, and may 

include clay, dune sand, rubble, building demolition debris, buried ships, and other materials. 

The portion of the project area that is inland from the historic shoreline is underlain by 

Franciscan bedrock at the surface or at shallow depths, although Bay Mud extends landward of 

the 1848 shoreline near the Transbay Terminal and in the southern portion of the project area 

between Third and Seventh Streets in areas of former marshlands. Quaternary sediments overlie 

bedrock throughout the project area except for Rincon Hill, which is the only surface exposure of 

Franciscan bedrock in the project area. Bedrock is less than 10 feet below ground surface near 

Townsend and Second Streets. 

Groundwater is between Seven and 10 feet below ground surface in the flat-lying portions of the 

project area, which corresponds to elevations of -3 to -10 feet relative to City and County of 

San Francisco Datum (8.6 feet above mean sea level). 

4.8.2 SEISMIC SETTING

The project area is seismically active, and ground shaking from earthquakes occurs periodically. 

Active faults in the Bay Area are illustrated in Figure 4.8-2. 

The San Andreas and Hayward faults have the highest slip rates and are the most active of any 

faults in the Bay Area. The San Andreas Fault, which is approximately 8.5 miles west of the 

project site, was the source of the 1906 magnitude 8.2 earthquake and the 1989 magnitude 7.1 

(Loma Prieta) earthquake. The Hayward Fault, which lies approximately nine miles east of the 

project site, was the source of the 1836 and 1868 magnitude 6.8 earthquakes. The Calaveras 

Fault, which is approximately 22 miles east of the project site, was the source of a 1911 

magnitude 6 earthquake and a 1984 magnitude 6.2 earthquake. 

Other important earthquake sources that are capable of producing large magnitude earthquakes 

are the San Gregorio, Rodgers Creek, and Greenville fault zones. 
CHAPTER 4: AFFE

4.8 GEOLOGY AND SEISMICITY 4-37 .Figure 4.8- 1: Generalized Geology of the Study Area 
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

4-38 4.8 GEOLOGY AND SEISMICITY 

Figure 4.8-2: Locations of Active Faults in the San Francisco Area
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

4.9 VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE 4-39 

No known faults cross the project alignment; however the faults shown in Figure 4.8-2 may 

subject the study area to strong ground shaking. Estimates of peak ground acceleration from an 

earthquake on the San Andreas or Hayward fault within the study area range from 0.2g to 0.5g. 

Ground failure hazards during an earthquake can include settlement and liquefaction. During the 

1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, ground deformation in the project area consisted of settlement, 

ground cracking, and/or sand boils. These features were observed between Beale Street and The 

Embarcadero from Market to Harrison Streets, and from Fourth to Ninth Streets between 

Mission and King Streets. 

4.9 VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE 

Portions of the project area lie within reclaimed areas formed by filling former marshes and 

estuaries of San Francisco Bay, including Mission Bay, South Beach and Yerba Buena Cove. 

Except for South Park and landscaping associated with recent residential developments in the 

South Beach/Steamboat Point area, the vicinity of the proposed project is generally paved with 

concrete and asphalt. No sizable natural habitat for biological plant, animal, or bird species 

remains. 

Although the project area lies adjacent to the San Francisco Bay, all construction would occur 

outside the Bay Conservation and Development Commission’s 100-foot “shoreline band,” and 

no project alternatives would require filling of or construction within wetlands or Bay waters or 

affect water quality. No effects on San Francisco Bay bird species are anticipated. 

These findings are consistent with the previous environmental studies conducted in the area, 

including the March 1997 Draft EIS/EIR for the Caltrain Downtown Extension Project, and the 

Draft EIS/EIR for Alternatives to Replacement of the Embarcadero Freeway and the Terminal 

Separator Structure, published by the City of San Francisco, Caltrans, and the Federal Highway 

Administration in 1995. Both these studies addressed an area similar to the present project area. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service indicated that no adverse effects on endangered species of 

wildlife and plants or their habitats are expected from the proposed improvements. A copy of the 

Service’s August 10, 2001, letter is provided in Appendix D. 

4.10 WETLANDS 

The present China Basin Channel is not a naturally occurring tidal creek but the remains of the 

former Mission Bay. The entire site, like the project area in general, has been altered through 

extensive urban development or landscaping. No wetlands remain. 
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

4-40 4.11 WATER RESOURCES 

4.11 WATER RESOURCES 

4.11.1 GROUND WATER RESOURCES

The occurrence of groundwater in the project area is related to the nature of shallow soil and 

bedrock. In the fill areas (see Figure 4.17-1 for the location of fill areas and the historic 

shoreline.), groundwater occurs at depths of two to ten feet below ground surface, and the 

elevation of groundwater corresponds with the level of San Francisco Bay. In areas underlain by 

alluvial soils and shallow bedrock, which generally correspond to the higher elevations in the 

project area, groundwater is typically found at depths greater than 20 to 30 feet. 

Groundwater occurring within fill soils in the project area is expected to be shallow and, 

therefore, susceptible to contamination from past industrial land use, placement of contaminated 

fill material, and releases from underground storage tanks (USTs). Groundwater quality may be 

further degraded by seawater intrusion along The Embarcadero waterfront. The presence of 

chemical constituents such as petroleum hydrocarbons and chlorides may affect how water 

generated during construction dewatering will be handled and disposed. The City and County of 

San Francisco and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board do not consider water in 

this area suitable for potable supplies, but consider it potentially suitable for industrial purposes, 

although no known uses are reported within the project area. 

The quality of the groundwater in the fill soils is generally poor. Brackish conditions exist in 

most of the project area due to the proximity of the Bay, where tidal fluctuations are generally in 

the range of six feet. Seawater intrusion resulting from tidal fluctuations has been known to 

occur several hundred feet from the Bay and tidal channels (e.g., China Basin Channel). The 

presence of chlorides in the groundwater can restrict the discharge of dewatering effluent to the 

City's combined sewer system because of chloride content limits imposed by the San Francisco 

Department of Public Works (DPW), which operates the sewage treatment plant. 

Groundwater encountered in the fill areas of the alignment may contain varying concentrations 

of petroleum hydrocarbon contaminants, primarily because the South of Market area contains 

one of the highest densities of USTs in the City (see discussion of Hazardous Wastes, Section 

4.17). Hydrocarbon contamination may affect dewatering programs, possibly requiring 

treatment of pumped groundwater prior to discharge to the storm sewers. Although polynuclear 

aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) and lead are present in the fill soils, groundwater has not typically 

been affected by these contaminants. 

4.11.2 SURFACE WATER RESOURCES

The relative density of impermeable surfaces within the project area is on the order of 

95 percent. Most of the area is completely paved and developed and no surface water bodies 

exist with the exception of China Basin Channel and San Francisco Bay. All stormwater runoff 
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

4.12 FLOODPLAINS 4-41 

in the project area is captured by the City's combined sewer system, with one exception: storm 

sewers along the bayward portion of The Embarcadero discharge directly to the Bay. 

The sewer system is served by an 18-foot by 18-foot box sewer, which runs along The 

Embarcadero, King, and Berry Streets to a pump station at Berry and Seventh Streets. From the 

pump station, the water is transported to a sewage treatment plant near Phelps and Jerrold 

Streets. Data on water quality were not available for the project area; however, due to the 

heavily urbanized nature of the project area, runoff water quality is expected to be poor. 

4.12 FLOODPLAINS 

The City and County of San Francisco does not participate in the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency's floodplain identification program, and no floodplains have been 

identified within San Francisco. 

4.13 COASTAL ZONE 

The McAteer-Petris Act of 1965, as amended, grants the San Francisco Bay Conservation and 

Development Commission (BCDC) permit authority over San Francisco Bay and over lands 

located within 100 feet of the Bay shoreline. BCDC's management plan for the San Francisco 

Bay, The San Francisco Bay Plan, has been certified by the Federal Department of Commerce as 

the Coastal Zone Management Program for the San Francisco Bay Segment of the California 

Coastal Zone Management Program pursuant to the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act 

(CZMA). Under the CZMA, federal projects and local projects that use federal funding or 

require federal approval must, to the maximum extent practicable, be consistent with a state's 

coastal management program if the project would affect the coastal zone, and BCDC's authority 

may extend inland more than 100 feet. 

The Second-to-Mission Alternative is the closest alignment to BCDC’s jurisdiction. The 

alignment terminates at Mission Street and The Embarcadero and is approximately 190 feet 

(63 yards) from the shoreline. The alignment would not have any effects on shoreline access or 

water quality. No formal finding of consistency with the Coastal Zone Management Plan (i.e., 

the San Francisco Bay Plan) would therefore be required. 

4.14 UTILITIES 

The San Francisco Department of Public Works maintains a combined storm drain and sanitary 

sewer system in the Transbay Terminal, Caltrain Downtown Extension, and redevelopment area. 

Sewer types include vitrified clay pipe (VCP); older iron/steel pipe (ISP); very old brick 

collector sewers; medium-sized reinforced concrete interceptor sewers, and large reinforced 

concrete consolidation sewers that carry sewage and storm water from downtown to the 
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

4-42 4.15 ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS 

Southeast Treatment Plant. Sewers range in size from eight inch VCP to seven feet circular 

concrete. 

The San Francisco Water Department maintains an interconnected grid of service lines 

throughout the area, and the San Francisco Fire Department maintains a second parallel system 

of auxiliary water lines exclusively for supplying fire hydrants (with potable water) and with 

provision for supplying salt water from the Bay for fire fighting. Water lines are primarily cast 

iron and range in size from two to 30-inches. 

The City and County of San Francisco owns and operates the Hetch Hetchy water and power 

hydroelectric generating facilities that provide power to San Francisco via Pacific Gas and 

Electric Company's (PG&E) electrical transmission and distribution system. Electricity service 

is provided primarily from underground reinforced concrete vaults through a network of buried 

conduit and duct banks. PG&E maintains older, low-pressure cast iron natural gas lines from 

four to 16 inches in diameter, as well as new, high-pressure plastic lines from two to four inches 

in diameter. 

Communication networks interlace the area. Most communication equipment is owned and 

operated by Pacific Bell and routed underground, similar to electrical service. 

4.15 ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS 

Electromagnetic fields (EMF) are associated with electromagnetic radiation, which is energy in 

the form of photons. Radiation energy travels and spreads as it goes and has many natural and 

human-made sources. The electromagnetic spectrum, the scientific name given to radiation 

energy, includes light, radio waves, and x-rays, among other energy forms. For purposes of 

describing the EMF setting for the proposed project and, in Chapter 5, the EMF effects of the 

proposed project, human-made sources of radiation energy and associated EMF are relevant. 

The commonly known human-made sources of EMF are from electrical systems such as 

electronics, telecommunications, electric motors, and other electrically powered devices. The 

radiation from these sources is invisible, non-ionizing, and low frequency. Generally, in most 

living environments, the level of such radiation plus background natural sources of EMF is low 

and not considered hazardous. However, under extreme conditions, EMF can become intense, 

and hazards include shock and burn. Such conditions are nevertheless rare. The more pertinent 

concern over EMF exposure is the potential insidious biological and health effects to individuals 

as the number of EMF-generating activities increases. As more sources of EMF are introduced, 

the extent and level of human exposure increases. The potential biological and health effects are 

under much study and intense debate. 

Another concern over EMF generation is the potential interference to other electromagnetic 

systems that can result when new or more intense sources of radiation are introduced into the 

environment. These effects are better understood and well documented. Electromagnetic 
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

4.15 ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS 4-43 

interference (EMI) may include the interruption, obstruction, or other degradation in the effective 

performance of electronics and electrical equipment. Depending upon the critical nature of this 

equipment, the effects can have serious consequences for the health and safety of individuals. 

Perhaps of less concern, but nonetheless important, is that the efficiency of affected systems may 

be reduced. 

As the name implies, EMF has electrical and magnetic field components. With respect to 

electrical systems, electric fields result from the strength of the electric charge (voltage) while 

magnetic fields result from the motion of the charge. Direct current (DC) produces stronger 

EMFs than alternating current (AC). Electric field strength is measured in units of volts per 

meter (V/m) and is greater the higher the voltage. Field strength deteriorates rapidly with 

distance from the source. Magnetic field strength has several units of measure; the most 

commonly used are milligauss (mG) and the microTesla (mT). Ten milligauss equal one 

microTesla. Magnetic fields also deteriorate with distance but readily pass through most objects. 

Magnetic fields are typically the radiation of concern when evaluating EMFs. Consequently, 

EMF strength is measured in terms of milligauss. 

Although modern society increasingly relies on electromagnetic systems, strong EMF fields are 

not associated with the normal living and working environment. Examples of EMF intensities 

from human activities include the following: 

 Overhead power transmission line: 32 to 57 mG (range of exposure to utility workers) 

 Household appliances: 8 to 165 mG (at a distance of 27 cm, or 12 inches) 

 Computer video display: 2 to 4 mG (at 35 cm, or 16 inches) 

Rail vehicle (electrically powered) 400 mg (at 110 cm, or 43 inches from the vehicle 

floor) to 1,500 mG (at floor level)3

For comparison, in the natural environment apart from human activity, the earth’s static 

magnetic field varies from 300 mG at the equator to over 600 mG at the magnetic poles. 

The area of the Transbay Terminal/Caltrain Downtown Extension/Redevelopment Project is a 

moderate- to high-density urban environment with considerable commercial activity. As such, it 

contains numerous sources of EMFs. A major PGE substation exists at Fremont and Folsom 

Streets, and several telecommunications switching stations exist near Main and Spear and 

Harrison and Folsom Streets. 

Sources of electromagnetic radiation would appear to be increasing with densification and 

development of the area, although the effects on EMF levels are indeterminate without historic 

data. Many modern appliances, electronics and communications systems have been improved to 

reduce electromagnetic radiation/EMF levels. 

 

3 Safety of High Speed Guided Ground Transportation Systems, EMF Exposure Environments Summary Reports, Federal 

Railroad Administration, August 1993.
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

4-44 4.16 HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES 

The project area contains no known sources of high-level radiation or severe EMF exposures to 

the general public. EMF exposures, although common, are low-level. 

4.16 HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Potential historical and archaeological resources in the project area have been identified and 

evaluated in accordance with applicable regulations and guidelines. This section reports on the 

identification of such resources. 

4.16.1 REGULATORY SETTING

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 requires federal agencies to take 

into account the effects of their activities and programs on historic properties. Section 110 of the 

Act lays out affirmative agency responsibilities with respect to historic properties and establishes 

the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) for identifying and listing historic properties of 

importance to the nation, the states, and local communities. 

Guidelines for implementing Section 106 requirements are promulgated by the Advisory Council 

on Historic Preservation (ACHP) in “Protection of Historic Properties” (36 CFR Part 800). 

These guidelines require agencies to comply also with other federal laws related to historic 

preservation, including the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969; the Archaeological and 

Historic Preservation Act of 1979; and Executive Order 11593 (1971), addressing “Protection 

and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment.” Other agency-specific legislation requires 

consideration of the impacts of federal actions on cultural resources. Transportation projects 

must comply with the provisions of Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 

1966. 

The State of California references cultural resources in the California Environmental Quality Act 

(CEQA—Public Resources Code (PRC) Division 13, Sections 21000-21178); archaeological and 

historical resources are specifically treated under Sections 21083.2 and 21084.1, respectively. 

California PRC 5020.1 through 5024.6 (effective 1992) creates the California Register of 

Historical Resources and sets forth requirements for protection of historic cultural resources. 

The City and County of San Francisco has two sections of its Planning Code that deal 

specifically with the preservation of historic resources. Article 10 created the Landmarks 

Preservation Advisory Board and deals with the designation of landmarks and historic districts 

throughout the City. Article 11 deals with the preservation of historic buildings and creation of 

historic districts within the C-3 Districts (generally the downtown or central business district of 

San Francisco). The Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board makes recommendations to the 

Planning Department and Commission on the designation of landmarks and districts as well as 

the appropriateness of changes to historic buildings under the protection of Article 10 and 

permits to alter under Article 11. The City-designated structures and districts in Articles 10 and 
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

4.16 HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES 4-45 

11 are presumed historic resources under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as 

they are on a local register. In addition, resources listed or determined eligible for listing in the 

California Register of Historic Resources or in the Nation Register of Historic Places (NRHP) 

are also considered historic resources under CEQA. 

4.16.2 ARCHAEOLOGICAL AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS

An Area of Potential Effects (APE) for archaeological resources was delineated by FTA in 

consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). This APE was defined as the 

extent of proposed construction for the project (i.e., the project “footprint”). The locations of 

project components are shown in Chapter 2. Figures 2.2-1 and 2.2-7 identify the location of the 

Transbay Terminal component, Figures 2.2-9 through 2.2-21 identify the Caltrain Downtown 

Extension alignment, and Figure 2.2-22 identifies the locations of Redevelopment properties. 

4.16.3 HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS

An APE for historic architectural resources was also delineated by FTA in consultation with the 

State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). The APE was defined to take into account the 

potential impacts associated with different project components. The APE also overlaps with 

several previous investigations. One previous survey, by architectural historian Michael Corbett, 

was conducted for an earlier proposal for the Caltrain portion of this project. The major 

difference between the present APE and the Corbett survey area is the inclusion of more 

buildings and structures at the west side of Second Street from Brannan to Folsom Streets, as 

well as both sides of Second Street between Folsom Street and roughly Natoma Street. 

4.16.4 HISTORIC PROPERTIES SURVEY REPORT

A Historic Architectural Survey Report (HASR) and Historic Property Survey Report (HPSR), 

which identify and summarize potentially eligible historic and cultural resources within the APE, 

were prepared and submitted to the SHPO. The SHPO concurred in the determinations of 

eligibility on May 23, 2002. A copy of the SHPO's letter of concurrence is included in 

Appendix D. The following sections summarize information and National Register eligibility 

determinations contained in the HASR and HPSR; they also include available information 

regarding designations and eligibility at the local and State level. 

4.16.5 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Research for archaeological resources was conducted in 2001, and included review of historical 

maps and written sources, and a review of archaeological and historic site listings from the 

Historical Resources Information System Northwest Information Center at Sonoma State 
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

4-46 4.16 HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES 

University. There have been a relatively large number of archaeological studies conducted in the 

project vicinity in the past decade, including Caltrans’ SF-480 Terminal Separation Rebuild 

Project (1993), the City of San Francisco’s Alternatives to Replacement of the Embarcadero 

Freeway and the Terminal Separator Project (1995), and the Peninsula Corridor JPB’s 

Archaeological Resources Investigations of the Caltrain San Francisco Downtown Extension 

Project (1996). These studies and others were reviewed as part of the current study. An 

Archeological Report (AR) was prepared in support of the HPSR. 

The entire APE is covered by buildings and pavement, and the precise location, integrity and 

research potential of any archaeological resources that are present cannot be determined without 

subsurface excavation. The significance of an archaeological site is typically based on its 

potential to provide information important in prehistory or history, not on any intrinsic value in 

terms of style, materials, form of construction, or association with specific persons or events. 

Archaeological resources encountered before or during project construction would be evaluated 

in accordance with an Archaeological Research Design and Treatment Plan as described in 

Chapter 5. 

4.16.5.1 Prehistoric Archaeology 

Although five prehistoric archaeological sites have been recorded within approximately one mile 

of the APE, no known prehistoric archaeological sites are documented within the APE. 

Unidentified sites may exist, and it is possible to predict in general terms where such sites are 

likely to occur on the basis of prehistoric-period landscapes. 

Prehistoric archaeological remains in the APE may include, but are not limited to, lithic 

materials, shells and bone beads, bone tools, heat-altered rock, dietary remains, locally darkened 

soil (midden), and micro-constituents (e.g., charcoal or fish remains). These remains are likely 

to be contained within two general property types: residential and non-residential sites. Both 

types may be eligible for listing in the NRHP. 

Although it is impossible to determine where important archaeological remains are located 

without extensive fieldwork, it is possible to make general statements about the relative 

archaeological sensitivity of the project area. Because the proposed Transbay Redevelopment 

Area has the same prehistoric dune sand and bay margin environment as the location of a known 

prehistoric archaeological site, it is considered to have very high archaeological sensitivity. 

Geologic investigations conducted for the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge Project indicate 

that Holocene-age deposits are present west of Second Street, and that these terrestrial landform 

deposits have a maximum thickness of nearly eight meters (25 feet) and may extend to a 

maximum depth of approximately 15 meters (50 feet). These deposits are less than 10,000 years 

old, which is within the range of known human occupation in California. The area along Second 

Street therefore has high archaeological sensitivity for prehistoric sites. More research is 

necessary for the area along Townsend Street, which appears to be under the former Mission 

Bay. If similar results are forthcoming, these deeply buried deposits may contain prehistoric 
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

4.16 HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES 4-47 

sites. For purposes of the present study, the entire length of the tunnel alignment can be 

considered highly sensitive for prehistoric architectural resources. 

4.16.5.2 Historic Archaeology 

Nineteen known or potential historic-era archaeological sites have been identified within or 

immediately adjacent to the project alternative alignments. Cultural remains from historic 

periods are likely to occur within the APE, and historic periods within the study area have been 

defined as follows: Spanish Period, 1769-1822; Mexican Period, 1822-1848; Early American 

Period, 1848-1868; the Metropolis of the West/Southern Pacific Railroad Era, 1868-1906; and 

Post-Earthquake San Francisco, 1906-1950. Historical research suggests that examples of the 

following historic-period archaeological types may be present within the project area: 

• Domestic occupation sites –May consist of hollow features (wells, cisterns, garbage pits) 

and may occur in association with residences, schools, or other places where people 

lived. 

• Domestic architecture – The remains of residences and domestic outbuildings. 

• Commercial sites – Refuse caches and sheet deposits of refuse and fill, similar to 

resource types that occur on domestic sites, may also be expected on commercial sites. 

• Institutional sites – These sites represent organizations established to promote a certain 

objective, and include schools, hospitals, asylums, prisons, churches, etc. 

• Industrial Structures/Architecture – Archaeological remains of buildings and structures 

that housed or aided various industrial processes. 

• Industrial features – Evidence of industrial processes themselves, as distinct from the 

buildings in which these processes were housed. 

• Storage yards and warehouses – Storage facilities are unlikely to be NRHP-eligible 

themselves, but may protect earlier cultural strata that do have research potential. 

• Buried ships – Remains of abandoned sailing vessels may have been left in the former 

Yerba Buena Cove when the cove was filled. 

• Wharves – Archaeological remains of projecting wharves may be present on portions of 

the project area that straddled the shoreline at one time. 

• Landfills – Both purposeful and inadvertent fill may be present. 

• Gold Rush Period Sites – the scarcity of sites in San Francisco from the 1849-1853 Gold 

Rush era, and the subsequent depression (1853-1859) make any such deposit potentially 

eligible to the NRHP, as are historic sites that pre-date the Gold Rush. 

Areas of high historic archaeological sensitivity include the Transbay Redevelopment Area, the 

Second-to-Main Alternative alignment, and the Second-to-Mission Alternative alignment – 

particularly those portions that are not within historic roadways. Portions of the alternative 

alignments that pass under existing/historic roadways – for example Second and Townsend 

Streets – are likely to be less sensitive than where the project crosses historically developed 

blocks. 
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

4-48 4.16 HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES 

4.16.6 HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES

A Historic Architectural Survey Report (HASR) was prepared for this project and is summarized 

herein. Historical surveys that have previously been conducted in the vicinity of the proposed 

project were compiled and then supplemented with original field surveys and research where 

necessary. These previous studies include: Caltrans’ San Francisco Bay Bridge Request for 

Determination of Eligibility (1983), Caltrans’ I-280 Transfer Concept Program (1983), the City 

of San Francisco’s South End Historic District (1990), the Embarcadero Freeway and Terminal 

Separator Structure HASR (1994), the Caltrain Downtown Extension HPSR (1996), and the 

National Register Nomination for Second and Howard Historic District (1999). The compilation 

of existing inventories, as well as original research and field investigations were conducted in 

2001. Research was performed in various records of the San Francisco Planning Department, 

and information was also collected from the San Francisco Architectural Heritage (SFAH), the 

San Francisco Public Library, the California State Library in San Francisco, and at the 

Sacramento Public Library. A record search was conducted at the Northwest Information Center 

(at Sonoma State University), and the results of the record search were confirmed and updated. 

There are more than 120 buildings within the APE. Of these, 85 were evaluated for eligibility 

for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) because they were built in 1956 or 

earlier. As a result of this and previous studies, 39 of these properties have been determined 

eligible or appear to be eligible for listing on the NRHP either individually or as a contributor to 

a historic property or district. These properties are presented in Table 4.16-1 and are subject to 

Section 106 procedures and consultation described in the regulatory framework discussion 

above. Detailed descriptions for all potentially eligible properties are provided in the HASR. 

Chapter 5 of this EIS/EIR provides a description of each eligible property that would be affected 

by the proposed project. 

Table 4.16-1 also shows the historic status assigned by the City and County of San Francisco 

Planning Department. If the resource is listed in Article 10, the table indicates whether the 

structure is a City Landmark, or, if the building is located in one of the City-designated historic 

districts such as the South End, the table indicates if the building is considered contributing (C), 

contributing-altered (CA), or non-contributing (NC). Resources that have historic status under 

Article 11 could be located within the boundaries of a City-designated historic Conservation 

District such as the New Montgomery-Second Street. These resources are classified into one of 

five categories. Categories I and II are considered significant buildings, while Categories III and 

IV are designated as Contributing Buildings. Category V buildings are neither significant nor 

contributing and are considered unrated. 
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

4.16 HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES 4-49 

Table 4.16-1: Historic Architectural Properties within the APE Listed on, or 

Determined Eligible for, the National Register 

Building Address, Assessors 

Parcel No., or Bridge No. 

Date 

Constructed NR Status City Status (if any) Notes 

Properties in the Transbay Terminal Area 

Upper Deck Approaches 

Bridge #34-116F 1936 1 

Upper Deck Approaches 

Bridge #34-118L 1936 1 

Upper Deck Approaches 

Bridge #34-118R 1936 1 

Transbay Terminal Loop ramp 

#34-119Y 1936 1 

Harrison Street Overcrossing 

#34-120Y 1936 1 

The SF-Oakland Bay 

Bridge, its approach 

structures, bus ramps (loop), 

and other elements were 

listed on the National 

Register of Historic Places 

on August 13, 2001. 

425 Mission Street 

(Transbay Terminal) 

3719-003, 3720-001, 3721-006 

1939 1 

The Transbay Terminal is a 

contributing element of the 

SF-Oakland Bay Bridge, 

which was listed on the 

National Register of 

Historic Places on August 

13, 2001 

Properties in the Second and Howard Streets Area 

149 Second Street 

3721-049 1908 1D Article 11 

Category IV 

163 Second Street 

3721-048 1907 1D Article 11 

Category IV 

165-173 Second Street 

3721-025 1906 1D Article 11 

Category IV 

191 Second Street 

3721-022 1907 1D Article 11 

Category V 

580-586 Howard Street 

3721-092 through 106 1906 1D 

589-91 Howard Street 

3736-098 1906-1907 1D Article 11 

Category V 

These six buildings located 

on Second and Howard 

Streets are contributing 

elements of the Second and 

Howard Streets District, 

which was listed on the 

National Register in 1999. 

The four buildings with 

addresses on Second Street 

are also located within the 

City of San Francisco’s New 

Montgomery-Second Street 

Conservation District. (The 

two buildings with Howard 

Street addresses are located 

outside the conservation 

district boundaries.) 
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

4-50 4.16 HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Table 4.16-1: Historic Architectural Properties within the APE Listed on, or 

Determined Eligible for, the National Register 

Building Address, Assessors 

Parcel No., or Bridge No. 

Date 

Constructed NR Status City Status 

(if any) Notes 

Properties in the Second and Townsend Streets Area 

301-21 Brannan Street 

3788-037 1909 3D C 

461-67 Second St. 

3764-071 through 197 1909-38 2D2 C 

500 Second Street 

3775-001 1919 3D C 

512 Second Street 

3775-002 1909 3D C 

522-524 Second Street 

3775-004 1923 3D C 

525 Second Street 

3774-123 through 132 1906 3D C 

543-545 Second Street 

3774-064 and 065 1907 3D NC 

544 Second Street 

3775-005 1922 3D C 

555-559 Second Street 

3774-045 1913 3D C 

563 Second Street 

3774-044 1907 3D C 

580 Second Street 

3775-008 1912 3D C 

599 Second Street 

3774-031 1923 3D C 

601-15 Second Street 

3789-008 1909 3D C 

625-35 Second Street 

3789-007 1905 2D2 C 

634 Second Street 

(aka 35 Stanford Court) 

3788-038 

1920 3D C 

640 Second Street 

3788-002 1926 2S2 C 

650 Second Street 

3788-049 through 073 1922 2S2 C 

Unless otherwise noted, the 

buildings on Brannan, 

Second, South Park, and 

Townsend Streets are 

contributing elements of the 

Rincon Point/South Beach 

Historic WarehouseIndustrial District. This 

district was found to appear 

to be eligible for the 

National Register through a 

1983 survey conducted by 

Caltrans. In those cases 

where OHP has concurred 

with those findings, the 

NRHP status is “2.” 

All of these buildings are 

also located within the City 

of San Francisco’s South 

End Historic District, 

established in 1990. 

670-80 Second Street 

3788-043, 3788-044 1913 2S2 (670), 

3D (680) C 

1 South Park 

3775-007 1910 3D C 
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

4.16 HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES 4-51 

Table 4.16-1: Historic Architectural Properties within the APE Listed on, or 

Determined Eligible for, the National Register 

Building Address, Assessors 

Parcel No., or Bridge No. 

Date 

Constructed NR Status City Status (if any) Notes 

130 Townsend Street 

3788-008 1910 3D CA 

136 Townsend Street 

3788-009 1902 3D C 

144-46 Townsend Street 

3788-009A 1922 3D C 

148-54 Townsend Street 

3788-010 1922 3D C 

162-164 Townsend Street 

3788-081 1919 3D C 

166-78 Townsend Street 

3788-012 1910 3D C 

180 Townsend Street 

3788-013 1921 3D 

350-60 Townsend Street 

3786-015 1906 2S2 This building is individually eligible for the NRHP. 

Notes: National Register Status codes are as follows: 

1D – Listed on the National Register as a contributor to a district or multi-resource property. 

1S -- Separately Listed on the National Register. 

2 – Determined eligible for National Register in a formal process. 

2S1 -- Determined Eligible for Listing by the Keeper of the Register. 

2S2 -- Determined Eligible for Listing by Consensus of the SHPO and a Federal Agency. 

2D2 – Determined eligible as a contributor by consensus determination. 

3D -- Contributor to a District that Appears Eligible. SHPO has yet to concur.

4.16.6.1 Transbay Terminal 

The Transbay Terminal at 425 Mission Street occupies land extending from Mission Street on 

the north to Natoma Street on the south. The terminal building crosses Fremont Street on the 

east and First Street on the west. It is an 870-foot long flat slab with a 230-foot long central 

pavilion. The construction is reinforced concrete faced with California granite. Designed by 

Timothy Pfleuger, Arthur Brown, Jr., and John J. Donovan, consulting architects, and built in 

1939, the Transbay Terminal was the functional successor to the Ferry Building. When electric 

trains began arriving over the Bay Bridge, use of the Ferry Building dropped to almost nothing 

overnight, and the Transbay Terminal took over as the primary gateway to the city4

. 

 

4 Caltrans, 1995.
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

4-52 4.16 HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Caltrans reports identify the introduction of electric train services on the Bay Bridge as causing 

the rapid decline in ferry use and the corresponding decline of the Ferry Building as a 

transportation hub. In addition, there was also a modal shift from public transit to private 

automobile use with the opening of the Bay and Golden Gate Bridges, which also contributed to 

the almost total loss of ferry patronage. During this era, the Transbay Terminal became the 

primary transit gateway into the city. 

It should be noted that as congestion on the Bay and Golden Gate Bridges has increased, the 

Ferry Building reclaimed some of its historic importance as a transportation terminal. Current 

plans anticipate 33,000 to 40,000 weekday daily passengers on commuter ferry boats by 2020. 

(Water Transit Authority Implementation and Operations Plan, Section 2). 

The Transbay Terminal is a contributing element of the San Francisco - Oakland Bay Bridge, 

which was listed in the NRHP in August 2001. Its present owner is the California Department of 

Transportation. Its current use is for commuter and inter- and intra-regional bus transportation. 

The Transbay Terminal retains integrity with respect to exterior elevations, areas, and building 

materials; configuration of interior space; site; and the ramps that connect the building to the 

San Francisco - Oakland Bay Bridge. (The loop ramp is a component of the Bay Bridge, and it 

retains integrity as a bridge-related element.) The terminal building has remained in 

transportation use since it was constructed. Losses and compromises of integrity have occurred 

with modernization of elements such as doors, the new Greyhound passenger facility, and 

building materials; and seismic retrofit of various components to meet current earthquake safety 

standards.5

 The terminal requires substantial additional reconstruction to meet building and 

seismic codes and standards. 

4.16.6.2 Transbay Terminal Loop Ramp 

The Transbay Terminal Ramp structure consists of a 3,439-foot loop ramp connecting the 

San Francisco - Oakland Bay Bridge west span with the Transbay Terminal building. The loop 

ramp constitutes two of the six approach spans that remain from the original Bay Bridge project.6

 

It is constructed of riveted steel girders on concrete and steel bents. A concrete slab and box 

girder bridge on slab wall piers carries the Transbay Terminal Ramp over Harrison Street. This 

loop ramp was originally designed to carry trolley trains from the bridge to the terminal; the 

tracks were removed as electrified trains gave way to buses in the late 1950s. The terminal loop 

ramp currently serves bus traffic exclusively and is used for midday storage of transit buses. It is 

a contributing element of the San Francisco - Oakland Bay Bridge property, which is listed on 

the NRHP. 

 

5 Caltrans, 1995.

6 Caltrans, 1983.
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

4.16 HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES 4-53 

4.16.6.3 Rincon Point/South Beach Historic Industrial Warehouse District 

The Rincon Point/South Beach Historic Warehouse Industrial District is a NRHP-eligible district 

that was developed beginning in the 1850s and 1860s, when landfill efforts and warehouse 

construction changed the physical appearance of the "point" and "beach" forever. This district 

contains the greatest concentration of historic architectural resources within the project vicinity. 

The district was identified as appearing eligible for the National Register in 1983, based on 

research completed by Caltrans historians for the I-280 Transfer Concept Project. That research 

found that the district appeared eligible under all four National Register criteria. About 60 

buildings within the district have been identified as contributing to the district's significance. 

About eight of these buildings date from before the 1906 earthquake, with several from the mid1800s. The OHP Historic Property Data File shows a determination of eligibility for the district 

dated March 19, 1997 (suggesting that OHP has concurred with Caltrans eligibility finding); 

however, most of the individual buildings are still shown simply as “appears eligible,” or NRHP 

status. 

The 1983 inventory and evaluation form states that the district appeared to be eligible under 

National Register criteria A, B, C, and D, at the state level of significance. The following is an 

excerpt from the significance statement included on that form: 

Development of the Rincon Point/South Beach area began in the 1850s and 1860s as an answer 

to economic pressures resulting from the Gold Rush. As sea trade expanded and San Francisco 

developed into the leading port on the West Coast, both areas developed to serve warehousing 

needs of the burgeoning state. During the Civil War, the mining riches of the Sierra Nevada 

and Comstock were handled through the port to help fund the Union cause. The same area saw 

great numbers of Chinese enter California, seeking employment in the new land. After the turn 

of the century and following the 1906 earthquake and fire which devastated large areas of San 

Francisco, the Rincon Point/South Beach areas became mixed in nature: apartments and hotels 

appeared among the family businesses, light industry and more traditional warehouses. As a 

result of efforts to improve the appearance of the port for the 1915 Panama Pacific International 

Exposition, Mediterranean style pier bulkheads were erected to provide a formal entrance from 

the Bay to the city. 

By the end of the 1860s, increased landfill activities had seen streets cut and graded and hills 

leveled to provide shoreline fill. Steamboat Point, adjacent to South Beach, was filled until it 

precluded further shipbuilding activities there, and South Beach also began to develop as a 

warehousing district. Early facilities included the San Francisco and Pacific Gas Company at 

Second and King Streets, and the Pacific Mail Steam Ship Company, this latter including 

warehouses, shops and wharves. Still standing today is one of the company’s warehouses, the 

Oriental (1867). Though the Oriental Warehouse’s associated dock no longer exists, this 

building remains important in history as San Francisco’s reputed principal shipping point for 

Sierra Nevada and Comstock gold, and as the point of entry for large numbers of Chinese. 

Construction of a new seawall during the period 1878 to 1924 permitted further development of 

warehouses, dry docks, shipyards and other industries in this area, as a readily accessible outlet 

to ocean and coastal shipping was provided. Evidence of the period of development from 1880 
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

4-54 4.16 HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES 

to 1915 may still be seen, though many of the warehouses from this period have been destroyed. 

Those remaining structures, however, still afford a picture of the area’s general appearance 

during this important period. Rebuilding activities following the 1906 earthquake and fire 

altered the character of the area somewhat with the inclusion of hotels and apartments, though 

re-establishing warehousing and light industrial activities.

7

The Rincon Point/South Beach 

Historic Warehouse-Industrial 

District, as well as other 

resources within the APE, have 

been designated locally and/or 

are eligible for or listed on the 

California Register of Historic 

Resources.8

 

 

7 John Snyder, “Rincon Point/South Beach Historic Warehouse-Industrial District,” Caltrans Architectural Inventory/Evaluation 

Form, prepared July 22, 1983, copy on file with Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University. 

8 The California Register of Historic Resources was created in 1992 (AB 2881, Frazee), and Section 5024.1 of the Public 

Resources Code states that the California Register shall include "California properties formally determined eligible for, or listed 

in, the National Register of Historic Resources," State Historical Landmarks No. 770 and higher, as well as other State Historical 

Landmarks and Points of historical interest reviewed and included by the State Historical Resources Commission, and may

include other resources of specified types, "if nominated for listing . . . and determined to be significant by the Commission," and 

resources listed as significant in historical resource survey under certain conditions. 
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

4.16 HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES 4-55 

4.16.6.4 New Montgomery-Second Street Conservation District 

(City of San Francisco) 

The Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco approved the formation of the 

New Montgomery-Second Street Conservation District in 1985, because the area “possesses 

concentrations of buildings that together create a sub-area of architectural and environmental 

quality and importance which contributes to the beauty and attractiveness of the City.”9

 The 

location and boundaries of the New Montgomery-Second Street Conservation District were 

established on a map filed with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at that time.10

The characteristics of the New Montgomery-Second Street Conservation District that justify this 

designation include its history, architectural character, and visual and functional unity. The 

Planning Department also recognized the district’s dynamic continuity and the benefits it offers 

to the city in general as well as to residents. The following is an excerpt from Appendix F, 

Article 11, San Francisco City Planning Code: 

History of the District. This corridor forms one of the earliest attempts to extend the uses of 

the financial and retail districts to the South of Market area. Since Montgomery Street was 

the most important commercial street in the 1870's, New Montgomery Street was planned as 

a southern extension from Market Street to the Bay. Opposition from landowners south of 

Howard Street, however, prevented the street from reaching its original bayside destination. 

William Ralston, who was instrumental in the development of the new street, built the Grand 

Hotel and later the Palace Hotel at its Market Street intersection. A wall of large hotels on 

Market Street actually hindered the growth of New Montgomery Street and few retail stores 

and offices ventured south of Market Street. The unusually wide width of Market Street 

acted as a barrier between areas to the north and south for many years. 

A small number of office buildings were built on New Montgomery Street as far south as 

Atom Alley (now Natoma Street) after the fire. Many buildings were completed in 1907, and 

most of the street assumed its present character by 1914. At 74 New Montgomery Street, the 

Call newspaper established its first headquarters. A noteworthy addition to the streetscape 

was the Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Building. At the time of its completion in 1925, it 

was the largest building on the West Coast devoted to the exclusive use of one firm. Until 

the 1960's, the office district on New Montgomery Street was the furthest extension of the 

financial district into the South of Market area. More characteristic were warehouses and 

businesses that supported the nearby office district. For example, the Furniture Exchange at 

the northwest corner of New Montgomery and Howard Streets, completed in 1920, was 

oriented to other wholesale and showroom uses along Howard Street. 

 

9

 Added Ord. 414-85, App. 9/17/85. See Section 1103 of Article 11, San Francisco City Planning Code. 10 Map under File 223-84-4, Added Ord. 414-85, App. 9/17/85.
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

4-56 4.16 HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES 

One block to the east, Second Street 

had a different history from New 

Montgomery Street. The future of 

Second Street as an extension of the 

downtown depended upon the 

southward extension of the street 

through the hill south of Howard 

Street. At one time there was even a 

proposal to extend Second Street 

north in order to connect with 

Montgomery Street. The decision to 

extend Montgomery Street south 

rather than Second Street north due 

to the high cost of the Second Street 

Cut, however, discouraged retail and 

office growth on the street. As a 

result, by the 1880's Second Street 

was established as a wholesaling 

rather than retail or office area. In the 

1920's, Second Street contained a 

wide mixture of office support 

services. These included printers, 

binderies, a saddlery, a wholesale 

pharmaceutical outlet, and a variety 

of other retail stores and smaller 

offices. Industrial uses were 

commonly located on the alleyways 

such as Minna and Natoma and on Second Street, south of Howard Street. 

Basic Nature of the District. New Montgomery Street is characterized by large buildings 

that often occupy an entire section of a block defined by streets and alleys or a major portion 

of these sub-blocks. The buildings are of a variety of heights, but the heights of most of the 

buildings range from five to eight stories. Second Street is characterized by smaller, less 

architecturally significant buildings, but, because of their continuous streetwall, they form a 

more coherent streetscape. Without some sort of protection for the less significant buildings, 

the quality of the district would be lost due to pressure from the expanding office core. 

Architectural Character. Although the scale and size of the structures on New 

Montgomery Street are somewhat monumental, the area remains attractive for pedestrians. 

The street has a number of outstanding buildings concentrated on New Montgomery, such as 

the Palace Hotel, the Pacific Telephone tower, and the Sharon Building. The styles range 

from the Gothic skyscraper massing and Art Deco detailing of the Pacific Telephone and 

Telegraph Building to the Renaissance Palazzo style of the Palace Hotel. The primary 

building materials are earth tone bricks, stone or terra cotta, with ornamental details executed 

in a variety of materials including terra cotta, metal, stucco and stone. 

 Second Street has a smaller, more intimate scale. While on New Montgomery Street, 

buildings typically occupy an entire subblock, on Second Street, three or four small 
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

4.16 HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES 4-57 

buildings will occupy the same area. The buildings are generally mixed-use office and retail 

structures, three to five stories in height, with Renaissance-influenced ornament. 

The two streets are unified by several elements, including an architectural vocabulary that 

draws from similar historical sources, similar materials, scale, fenestration, color, stylistic 

origins, texture, and ornament. 

Uniqueness and Location. The District is located close to the central core of the financial 

district and is adjacent to an area projected for the future expansion. It is one of the few 

architecturally significant areas remaining largely intact in the South of Market area. 

Visual and Functional Unity. The District has a varied character ranging from the small 

and intimate on the alley streets to a more monumental scale on New Montgomery. In spite 

of this wide range, the district forms a coherent entity due to the buildings' common 

architectural vocabulary and the rhythm of building masses created by the District's 

intersecting alleys. 

Dynamic Continuity. The District is an active part of the downtown area, and after some 

years of neglect is undergoing reinvestment, which is visible in the rehabilitation of the 

Pacific Telephone Building, and the repair and rehabilitation of other buildings in the 

District. 

Benefits to the City and Its Residents. The District is a microcosm of twentieth century 

commercial architecture, ranging from low-level speculative office blocks to the City's 

premier hotels and executive offices of the time. The District now houses a variety of uses 

from inexpensive restaurants and support commercial uses, such as printers, to executive 

offices. The area retains a comfortable human scale, which will become increasingly 

important as neighboring areas of the South of Market become more densely developed. 11 

4.16.6.5 Second and Howard Streets District (National Register of Historic Places) 

The Second and Howard Streets District is a National Register historic district that is almost 

entirely surrounded by the City of San Francisco’s New Montgomery-Second Street 

Conservation District. The Second and Howard Streets District was evaluated in 1998 by Anne 

Bloomfield. Ms. Bloomfield submitted a NHRP Registration Form for the district to the 

California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) in October 1998, OHP certified the district in 

June 1999, and the district was listed on the NRHP on July 28, 1999.12

 

11 Added Ord. 414-85, App. 9/17/85. See, San Francisco City Planning Code, Article 11, Appendix F, 

http://www.ci.sf.ca.us/planning/.

12 Anne Bloomfield, “Second and Howard Streets District,” National Register of Historic Places Registration Form, prepared 

October 3, 1998, certified June 15, 1999, copy on file with Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University; NPS, 

National Register Information System (NRIS), “Second and Howard Streets District,” listing date July 28, 1999, as accessed at 

http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/research/nris.htm.
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

4-58 4.16 HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES 

The Second and Howard Streets 

District has been determined eligible 

for the National Register of Historic 

Places at the local level of 

significance, under Criterion C, 

architecture, in the context of San 

Francisco’s rebuilding after the great 

earthquake and fire of 1906. The 

district has a remarkable continuity of 

building type, scale, and style. Over 

90 percent of the buildings contribute 

to the feeling of a district. All the 

contributing buildings were 

constructed [between] 1906 and 1912, 

the district’s period of significance. 

All are masonry structures, half of 

them clad in brick, two in terra cotta 

(now painted), and the rest in stucco. 

All are Commercial Style with limited 

Renaissance-Baroque ornament. 

Ground floors are commercial and 

therefore, by design and practice, 

frequently altered to suit commercial 

needs. Upper floors most often are 

lofts. The area was built principally 

for services to the construction 

industry, perhaps the reason why it 

was built up so quickly after the 1906 earthquake and fire. The scale and modesty of the 

buildings demonstrates their intended uses as different from the city’s main office sector to the 

north crossing Mission and Market Streets and to the west along New Montgomery Street. 

They are also different from the industrial sector to the east and south. Services to the 

construction industry used to continue westerly from New Montgomery, near the Builders’ 

Exchange, a membership and mail boxes organization that in 1910 was located at 180 Jessie 

Street west of New Montgomery and Mission Streets. However, hardly any of the buildings 

housing that part of this service industry still exist. The 1910 classified directory shows the 

Second and Howard Streets District as headquarters for a plumbing supply house, nine electrical 

businesses, a terra cotta works (N. Clark & Sons), several engineers, metallurgists, a blueprint 

service, an asbestos supplier (Johns-Manville), a sheet metal works, chemists, and printers. The 

area of significance is architecture; significant dates are 1906, 1907, 1908, 1909, and 1912, the 

years of construction of the various buildings. The two non-contributing buildings [144-54 

Second Street and 168 Second Street] have been altered significantly. The district retains a 

remarkable integrity in contrast to all the city’s modern changes.13

 

13 Anne Bloomfield, “Second and Howard Streets District,” National Register of Historic Places Registration Form, prepared 

October 3, 1998, certified June 15, 1999, copy on file with Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University. 
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

4.16 HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES 4-59 

4.16.6.6 The South End Historic District (City of San Francisco) 

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors established the South End Historic District in 1990 

because of its “special character and special historical, architectural and aesthetic interest and 

value [that] constitutes a distinct section of the City.”14 The location and boundaries of the South 

End Historic District were on a map filed with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors under File 

No. 115-90-3.15 The following is an excerpt from Appendix I, Article 10, San Francisco City 

Planning Code, beginning with the historic context of the district: 

For decades after the 1849 Gold Rush, San Francisco was the principal seaport and connection 

with the outside world for California and the West Coast. San Francisco's expansion and 

transformation into one of the most important cities in North America is attributable to the 

eminence of its port that, because of its sheltered location and deep water, became one of the 

best-suited on the Pacific Ocean. 

The development of warehouses over a 120-year period along the southern waterfront provides 

a benchmark from which to view architectural and technological responses to the rapid changes 

of growing industrial nation state and city. The interdependence of architecture and history can 

be seen from a look at the evolution of warehouse forms along the southern waterfront. Unlike 

 

14 Added by Ord. 104-90, App. 3/23/90. See Section 1001, Article 10, City Planning Code.

15 Added by Ord. 104-90, App. 3/23/90. 

most other areas of the San Francisco waterfront, the South End district contains an 

extraordinary concentration of buildings from almost every period of San Francisco's maritime 

history. Several street fronts—such as Second, Third and Townsend—are characterized by 

solid walls of brick and reinforced concrete warehouses. With this harmony of scale and 

materials, the South End Historic District is clearly a visually recognizable place.

One-story warehouses were common in the nineteenth century but rare in the early twentieth 

due to the increasing cost of land. Two of the oldest warehouses in the historic district are one 

story in height: Hooper's Warehouse (1874) and the California Warehouse (1882). Their 

horizontal orientation is accentuated through the use of strong cornice lines with decorative 

brick patterns. Multi-story buildings have been more common along the southern waterfront 

since the turn of the century. After 1906, almost all new warehouses were constructed to be at 

least three stories in height, and several warehouses on Second and Townsend Streets reached 

six stories. The invention of the forklift in the 1930s eliminated advantages that multi-story 

buildings enjoyed over single-story structures. Since 1945, almost all warehouses constructed 

in the United States have been one story in height. Many multi-story warehouses and industrial 

buildings have been converted to other uses or are vacant because they have become obsolete 

for most warehouse or industrial functions.